Danteshwari Maiya Sahkari Sakkar ... vs Union Of India
2026 Latest Caselaw 829 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Danteshwari Maiya Sahkari Sakkar ... vs Union Of India on 20 March, 2026

                                                            1




        Digitally
        signed by

                                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
        RUKHSAR
RUKHSAR BANO
BANO    Date:
        2026.03.20
        17:06:00
        +0530


                                                 WPC No. 1040 of 2026


                     1 - Danteshwari Maiya Sahkari Sakkar Karkhana Maryadit Balod (A Registered
                     Society) Tehsil And District- Balod (C.G.) Through- General Manager- Lileshwar
                     Kumar Dewangan S/o Uday Dewangan Age About 59 R/o DMSSKM Colony
                     Karkabhat Balod Tehsil And District- Balod (C.G.)
                                                                                      ... Petitioner

                                                         versus

                     1 - Union Of India Through- Secretary Ministry Of Consumer Affairs Food And
                     Public Distribution (Department Of Sugar And Vegetable Oils) Krishi Bhavan
                     New Delhi- 110001
                     2 - Joint Secretary (Sugar) Ministry Of Consumer Affairs Food And Public
                     Distribution (Department Of Sugar And Vegetable Oils) Krishi Bhawan New Delhi
                     Pin- 110001,
                     3 - Chief Director (Sugar) Ministry Of Consumer Affairs Food And Public
                     Distribution (Department Of Sugar And Vegetable Oils) Krishi Bhavan New Delhi-
                     110001.
                     4 - Sugarcane Commissioner Ministry Of Agriculture And Science Raipur
                     Chhattisgarh
                                                                                    ... Respondents

Order Sheet

20/03/2026 Mr. R.K. Gomasta, counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General for the respondents No.1 to 3.

Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, G.A. for the State/Respondent No.4.

Heard.

Issue notice to the respondents by both modes. Learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice on behalf of their respective respondents, hence, issuance of notice to them is dispensed with.

Also heard on I.A. No.01/2026, application for grant of interim relief / stay.

Issue notice to the respondents on interim application also, as above.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner -Society has a stock of 28,791 quintal of sugar. It has purchased 30664.467 metric tonne sugarcane worth ₹ 10.09 crores from farmers of locality for production of sugar, out of which, only ₹ 1.052 crores has been paid by the petitioner to the farmers and the balance amount to be paid to them is ₹ 9.037 crores. He further submits that because of restrictions imposed by the Central Government vide impugned notifications, i.e., Annexure P-2 to Annexure P-13, the petitioner has not been able to sell the stock of white sugar available with it, which is creating a crisis like situation before the petitioner. He further submits that if the petitioner is not permitted to immediately sell additional stock of sugar in addition to the limits imposed by the respondents, the petitioner would not be able to pay any money to the farmers and there can be a possibility of unrest and agitation amongst the farmers against the petitioner-Society which would be detrimental to the establishment in the long run and, therefore, an interim protection may be granted enabling the petitioner to sell certain additional sugar stock enabling it to pay the

amount payable to the farmers.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in similar nature of petitions, i.e., WPC No.1559/2020; WPC No.5403/2021; WPC No.3609/2022; WPC No.3513/2023; WPC No.1031/2024 and WPC No.1176/2025, this Court has already granted interim protection in favour of the petitioners therein, therefore, similar relief can also be granted to the petitioner in the present case so that the immediate need of the hour for releasing the funds payable to the farmers of sugarcane can be made.

In reply, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that without permission of the Central Government, the petitioner shall not be permitted to sell the sugar. He further submits that at least the petitioner may be directed to keep 20% of produced sugar in the reserve pool as required under the Sugar Control Order, 1966 as per direction already issued by the Government of India in this regard.

Let the respondents file a detailed reply in respect of the subject matter of the case particularly disclosing the method of fixing quota upon each of the establishment, within a period of three weeks.

Meanwhile, taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances that are prevailing and the immediate need of the sugarcane farmers, who have sold their stock to the petitioner's establishment, as an interim measure, the petitioner is permitted to sell an additional stock of sugar after keeping 20% of the same in reserve pool, enabling it to make payment to the farmers. It is made clear that, pursuant to this interim protection, the petitioner shall sell the sugar only to

distribute the farmers' sale price of sugarcane and not for any other purpose.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to submit quarterly statement of the sugar stock and sell.

List the case after three weeks.

CC as per rules.

Sd/-

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

Rukhsar