Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23636 petition. Petitioner purchased paddy under the Policy formulated 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 Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:23636 to avail remedy of arbitration under Clause-14 of the agreement 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.