Chattisgarh High Court
Deepak Singh Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 July, 2024
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:23628
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 3335 of 2024
• Deepak Singh Thakur S/o Krishna Singh, Aged About 29 Years Man-
ager In Charge (Prabhari Samiti Prabandhak) Of Seva Sahakari Samiti
Maryadit, Vedparsada, Registration No. 685, R/o Masturi, Tahsil And
Block Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Food,
Civil Supplies Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2. Managing Director C.G. State Market Federation Maryadit, Atal Nagar,
Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
3. District Marketing Officer Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
4. District Cooperative Central Bank Limited Through Its Chief Executive
Officer, District Cooperative Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank
Limited, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
5. Nodal Officer District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Bilaspur, Dis-
trict Bilaspur (C.G.)
6. The Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
7. Assistant Registrar Co-Operative Societies Bilaspur, Tahsil And District
Bilaspur (C.G.)
8. Deputy Commissioner Co-Operative/deputy Registrar, Co-Operative
Societies, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
9. Sub-Divisional Officer Masturi, District-Bilaspur (C.G.)
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Rajbahadur Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Harshal Chauhan, Advocate For Respondents No. 4 & 5 : Mr. Vishal Sahu, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 03/07/2024
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is holding the post of Manager and also worked as in-charge of Paddy Procurement Centre as mentioned in cause title of the writ petition. Petitioner purchased paddy under the Policy formulated Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23628 2 by respondents. According to the tripartite agreement entered into between the parties, last / cut-off date for lifting of paddy in the kharif season 2023-24 was till 28.02.2024, accordingly, petitioner purchased paddy. In the said agreement entered into between the parties, it is an obligation on the part of respondent-MARKFED to lift paddy from the Procurement Centre and to store in particular place within specified period. However, respondent-MARKFED failed to lift paddy purchased by petitioner society within specified time from the date of its purchase. Entire paddy purchased by society was dumped in the open sky at Paddy Procurement Centres under direct sunlight due to which moisture of paddy dried and had suffered loss of weight. He contended that after lifting and transportation of paddy from Paddy Procurement Centre, a joint notice to the Societies running within Bilaspur district was issued mentioning quantity of shortage of stock of paddy and to deposit the shortage quantity. The petitioner is being harassed and threatened by the respondent authorities through the Police administration by calling him in the police station, keeping him sitting there for whole day and also threatening to register case against him, without following the due procedure as provided under the Policy formulated by the State Government, providing the petitioner an opportunity to explain as to whether, there is any loss or not. The action on the part of respondents is per se illegal and arbitrary. Petitioner was not issued any show cause notice nor was given any intimation as to what was the actual loss. He also contended that earlier also similar actions were taken against which several writ petitions were filed in which this Court taking note of the clauses of agreement had permitted petitioners therein to avail remedy of arbitration under Clause-14 of the agreement Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23628 3 and till decision of proceedings under the arbitration to be submitted before the Collector, interest of petitioners therein were also protected. He submits that case of petitioner is also on similar footing and therefore similar order may be passed in his favor.
2. Learned State counsel and the counsel for respondent-MARKFED opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioners and submits that upon completion of upliftment and transportation of paddy purchased by petitioner at Paddy Procurement Centre, shortage of paddy was found, petitioner could not able to give proper and satisfactory reply and therefore, the proceeding have been initiated. However, he does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for petitioner based on Clause 5.6 and 14 of tripartite agreement. He also does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for petitioner based on the order passed by this Court in similar writ petitions. Learned State counsel also submits that as the loss of paddy is causing loss of State exchequer, and therefore the Collector has issued a direction to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of amount towards the loss of aforementioned quantity of paddy or for recovery of aforementioned quantity of paddy, hence, the action cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal.
3. I have heard learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the copy of tripartite agreement enclosed along with this writ petition.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is mainly that no action can be taken against the petitioner in the individual capacity if for any reason there is shortage in the quantity of paddy and that too unless and until some inquiry is conducted. Clause 5.6 of the Agreement reads as under :-
Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23628 4
"5.6- foi.ku la?k }kjk iznk; dh xbZ jkf'k ls miktZu dsUnz ¼lfefr½ }kjk /kku foi.ku la?k dks de izkIr gksus ij 'ks"k jkf'k dh olwyh lfefr dks iznk; deh'ku ,oa vU; vuqlkafxd enksa ls jkf'k dh dVkSrh dh tkosxh A blds mijkar Hkh olwyh ;ksX; jkf'k 'ks"k jgus ij ftyk foi.ku vf/kdkjh }kjk N-x- jkT; lgd-
kjh lkslk;Vh vf/kfu;e 1960 ds varxZr olwyh dk;Zokgh gsrq l{ke U;k;ky; esa izdj.k ntZ fd;k tkosxk A"
5. Clause 14 of the Agreement provides for arbitration of the dispute between the parties, reads as under :-
"14- vkfCkZVªs'ku %& bl vuqca/k dh fdlh Hkh df.Mdk ls lacaf/kr fookn mRiUu gksus dh fLFkfr esa fookn ds fu.kZ; gsrq ftys esa ftyk dysDVj dk fu.kZ; vfUre gksxk tks mHk;i{kksa dks ekU; gksxk A dysDVj }kjk fn;s x;s fu.kZ; dh vihy mHk;i{kksa }kjk ftys ds laHkkxh; vk;qDr dks dh tk ldsxh A"...
6. Under clause 5.6 of the Agreement, there is specific provision as to the recovery of the loss suffered by the Marketing Federation to be made from the concerned Society, wherein primarily, it is to be recovered from the commission and other heads for which the Society is entitled, for their services rendered in paddy procurement. If further amount is left, then the recovery proceedings is to be initiated under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
7. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, aforementioned relevant clauses of the agreement as also considering the copy of the policy formulated by the State Govt. which is placed before this Court for consideration, this writ petition is disposed of with a permission to the petitioner to file representation before the Collector in terms of Clause 14 of the Agreement within a period of 03 weeks from today. The Collector, Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23628 5 in turn, shall adjudicate upon the grounds raised by the writ petitioner and will also be at liberty to invoke Clause -14 of the proforma agreement and to pass orders on representation preferably within a further period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of representation. The petitioner is directed to cooperate in the proceedings of the inquiry, if any, conducted by respondent - Authority.
8. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is being threatened for taking coercive action against him if he fails to meet out the shortage of paddy, it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner if he submits the representation within specified time till decision on his representation.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
1. Judge /pawan