Chattisgarh High Court
Ku. Laxmi Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 April, 2022
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WP(C) No. 1586 of 2022
Ku. Laxmi Verma D/o Late Hem Singh Verma, Aged About 34 Years
Occupation Incharge Paddy Procurement Center Seva Sahkari Samiti
Maryadit Pandarbhatta (Reg.No. 676), Police Station Tahsil And District
Mungeli (Chhattisgarh). Mo. No. 9981427325.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Food, Civil
Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan,
New Mantralaya Raipur, Police Station Rakhi, District Raipur
(Chhattisgarh).
2. Collector, Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.
3. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing
Federation Limited, 6th Floor, Tower-C, Commercial Complex Cbd,
Sector 21, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).
4. Assistant Registrar, Co-Operative Societies Mungeli, Police Station,
Tahsil And District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh).
5. District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipadan Sangh
Maryadit Mungeli, Police Station, Tahsil And District Mungeli
(Chhattisgarh).
6. Chief Executive Officer Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Nehru
Chowk Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, Tahsil And District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
7. Board Of The Director/ Chairman Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit
Pandarbhattha, Regd. No. 676, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal,
Advocate.
For respondent No.1 to 5/ State : Shri Aditya Tiwari, P.L.
For respondent No.6 : Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
Order on Board
04.04.2022
Heard on petition as well as on I.A. No. 1 of 2022, an application for
grant of interim relief.
1. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is
in-charge of the Paddy Procurement Center Sewa Sahkari Samiti
Maryadit Pandarbhatta having registration No.676 under the Kharif
Marketing Year 2021-2022. The petitioner society has purchased 64200
quintals of paddy. Out of which, 59183.70 quintals of paddy has been
lifted by the Miller and 4329.30 quintals of paddy was in the stock.
Because of the heavy rains, the stocked paddy has suffered damages
and the miller has refused to lift the same. An inspection of the Center
was made on 11.3.2022 and on that basis, a notice has been issued to
the petitioner by respondent No.4 on 12.3.2022 alleging that 3816.30
quintals of paddy is missing and directing the petitioner to show-cause.
The petitioner replied to the notice but respondent No.4 has held the
petitioner responsible for the loss and directed respondent No.7 to take
action against the petitioner vide letter dated 17.3.2022, and also
directing respondent No.7 to serve charge-sheet on the petitioner. It is
further submitted that the loss of paddy that has occurred was due to
the reasons of the rains and thus natural causes. Clause 9 of the
Agreement provides that the Marketing Federation shall take steps to
insure the loss which may be occur due to natural reasons i.e. fire,
accident or theft etc. and Clause 14 of the Agreement provides for
arbitration in case any dispute arises between the concerned, the
petitioner should have been given an opportunity to refer the dispute for
arbitration.
Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the
case of Kanhaiya Lal Dansena vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., in
W.P.(C) No. 4767 of 2021 dated 25.11.2021.
2. Learned State counsel representing for respondents No.1 to 5 opposes
the submissions.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the facts of this case
are not similar to the case in W.P.(C) No.4767 of 2021, the petitioner has
failed to preserve and keep safe the stock of the paddy, therefore, the
action taken is proper.
4. Considered on the submissions. The claim of the petitioner is that the
loss of paddy has occurred due to the natural causes i.e. rain, which
needs an enquiry. This Court cannot make an enquiry on the dispute
raised, however, such enquiry can be made by the District Collector who
has the power to arbitrate on the dispute in accordance with Clause 14
of the Agreement, therefore, the petition is disposed of. The petitioner is
granted liberty to file a reference before respondent No.2 by invoking
Clause 14 of the Agreement within a time limit of 10 days. On filing of
such representation, the Collector/ respondent No.2 shall be obliged to
take decision on the dispute at the earliest, within the time limit of 45
days from the date the representation is received. It is further ordered
that until the decision is taken by the Collector/ respondent No.2, on the
dispute raised by the petitioner, the proceeding contemplated against
the petitioner by orders dated 12.3.2022 & 17.3.2022 (Annexure-P/1 &
P/2), shall remain stayed.
5. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Judge
Nimmi
