Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 03/08/2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners:

1. Kamalesh Soni, son of Late Prahalad Soni, aged about 53 years, Assistant Manager of Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Birendra Nagar Paddy Procurement Centre, Kabirdham district, Chhattisgarh.

2. Lalit Sengar, son of Lakshaman Sengar, aged about 44 years, Clerk of Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Dharamgarh Paddy Procurement Centre, Kabirdham district, Chhattisgarh.

  • Respondents: State of Chhattisgarh (through Secretary, Department of Co‑Operative), Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Suppliers, Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, Collector Kabirdham, District Marketing Officer Kabirdham, CEO District Co‑Operative Central Bank Maryadit (Kabirdham), Deputy Registrar Co‑Operative Society Kabirdham, District Food Officer Kabirdham.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ Petition (WPC No. 4006 of 2026) challenging the alleged inaction/inaction of the respondent authorities in timely lifting and transportation of procured paddy, leading to natural dry‑age loss and coercive recovery threats.
  • Key Facts:
  • Total paddy procured at Kamtha Paddy Procurement Centre: 1,12,667.20 quintals.
  • Reported shortage: 1,636.21 quintals, i.e., about 1.45% of the total, attributed to moisture loss during prolonged storage caused by delayed lifting.
  • Petitioners assert that the shortage is not due to any misappropriation or negligence on their part but solely due to the respondents’ failure to lift the stock within the period prescribed under the Paddy Procurement Policy for the Kharif Marketing Season 2025‑2026.
  • Petitioners allege that the respondents are threatening deduction, recovery, and initiation of criminal proceedings (FIR) to recover the shortage.
  • Legal References:
  • The Court noted that a similar issue had been decided in Sanjay Kumar Dharmendra vs. State of Chhattisgarh (WPC No. 3158 of 2026) dated 02.07.2026, and the present petition should be disposed of on similar terms.
  • Paddy Procurement Policy provisions cited:
  • Clause 15.9 – (text in Hindi, pertaining to storage and handling of grain).
  • Clause 16.3 – Stipulates that if MARKFED fails to arrange transportation/lifting, the concerned Society may arrange it at prescribed rates, with the expenditure to be adjusted by MARKFED.
  • Agreement between parties:
  • Clause 5.6 – (garbled text, relating to responsibilities of the Society and MARKFED).
  • Clause 13 – Provides that disputes shall be resolved by arbitration.
  • Court’s Reasoning:
  • The shortage arises from delayed lifting and consequent dry‑age, which is governed by the policy and the procurement agreement.
  • The policy does not provide an automatic dry‑age benefit; instead, it allows the Society to arrange transportation at its own cost, recoverable from MARKFED.
  • Since the agreement contains a specific arbitration clause (Clause 13), the Court held that the dispute must be resolved through that contractual mechanism rather than through a writ petition under Article 226.

Final Outcome

  • The Court declined to entertain the writ petitions on merits, directing the petitioners to invoke the arbitration remedy under Clause 13 of the agreement.
  • All writ petitions forming part of this batch are disposed of, with no order as to costs.
  • The Court clarified that it has expressed no opinion on the merits of the shortage, liability, or the legality of any proposed recovery; these issues are to be decided by the competent arbitration forum.

Topics: Paddy Procurement, Arbitration, Cooperative Dispute