Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. All the petitions are heard together because common issue is being projected.

2. The petitioners were running paddy procurement centres and they were to procure paddy from the farmers on behalf of the C.G. State Cooperating Marketing Federation Limited (MARKFED). After purchase it was to be stored in the procurement centres and thereafter required to be transferred to various storage centres as per the direction of the MARKFED. As per Clause 4.1 of the policy of the State dated 29.11.2020, the paddy was to be procured by MARKFED and the policy also lays down different guidelines about the transportation of the paddy. It is submitted that in these cases no agreement was entered in between the MARKFED, State and the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that as per Clause 4.1 of the policy, the entire procurement of paddy was to be done by MARKFED and as per Clause 16 of the policy MARKFED was responsible to transport the paddy through the transporter as per the approved rates. It is contended that pursuant to the policy the paddy procurement centres which are being run by the petitioners procured the paddy and at the time of procurement of paddy, the moisture content of the paddy was required to be to the extent of 17% and the paddy above said moisture level was not to be accepted from the framers. It is contended that for paddy procurement centres the buffer limit was fixed and if it exceeds the paddy was to be transported within 72 hours but only meager amount of paddy could be transported which resulted into huge stock of paddy into the procurement centres. It is stated that the District Cooperative Central Bank had fixed the buffer limit of stock and in case the buffer limit exceeds, then the additional paddy is required to be lifted within time.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/ MARKFED and District Marketing Officer would submit that in the instant case there is no tri parte agreement was executed between the parties. It is stated as per the clause 16.3 of the policy, if the MARKFED fails to transport the paddy, then the petitioners could have transported the paddy on the schedule rates which they have failed to do so. It is further submitted that clause 9.7 of the policy also engrafts the condition that in case of any dispute they may approach the authorities including the Collector and Managing Director of the MARKFED, therefore the petitioners can very well approach the prescribed authorities. It is further submitted that in case of loss caused, it is disputed question of facts which cannot be adjudicated by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitions are liable to be dismissed.

11. Admittedly, as on date the paddy is lying with the societies/ petitioners i.e. procurement centres. Though the policy engrafts that in case the paddy is not transferred by the MARKFED, the society/ petitioners could have transferred the same on approved rates with the approved transporters, if TO/ DO is issued. The letters in these cases are placed that though request was made to issue the TO/ DO to the MARKFED but they were not issued, therefore in absence of any TO/ DO the paddy could not be transfered. Then in such case the petitioners cannot be held to be at fault for non transportation of the paddy to the storage centres. Certainly, this is a disputed question of facts which requires to be evaluated whether for delay in transportation, the paddy has lost its value by rain or by exposure or by termite or mice and for who's fault. The clause 19.7 of the policy states that entire procurement of the paddy and subsequent arrangement would be done under the supervision of Collector and if any problem occurs, then the application can be filed with the Secretary of the State, Civil Supplies or the MD of MARKFED. The clause 19.7 of the policy reads as under:-