Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: markfed in Adim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 August, 2021Matching 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.
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.
6. Learned State counsel adopts the argument of the respondents.
7. Perused the documents filed along with the petitions.
8. In the instant case, the dispute has come to fore for non lifting of the paddy which is lying at the paddy procurement centres which was required to be transferred to storage centres. As per the policy dated 29.11.2020, the procurement of paddy was done. Clause 4.1 of the policy purports that the procurement of the paddy would be done by MARKFED. It also purports that the agreement would be executed but in these cases the agreement has not been executed. The letters which are on record would show that the petitioners have informed the District Marketing Officer and the other authorities of the MARKFED by different letters that since the procurement of paddy has exceeded the buffer limit and certain part has only been transported, the rest of the paddy may be transported immediately.