Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Kukdikala v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1602 of 2021 • Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Kukdikala Registration No. 690, Through The Society Manager - Lahuraj Kashyap Son Of Chandan Kashyap, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of Village Loharsi (Soan) District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Marketing Federation, Maryadit, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. The Collector District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

4. The District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Federation Limited, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :

Shri Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/ State :

Ms. Richa Shukla, Dy. G.A.

For Respondent No. 2 & 4 :

Shri Ramakant Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 19.03.2021 Heard

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner is a agent who procures the paddy which in turn is handed over to the respondent No. 2 i.e. Managing Director C.G. State Marketing Federation and agreement was executed by the respondent No. 4 i.e. District Marketing Officer on behalf of the respondent No. 2. According to Clause 2.7 of the agreement which is filed

as Annexure P/2, if the paddy stock exceeds the buffer limit then it is the duty of the State Marketing Federation to lift the same. He further submits that in respect of the paddy procurement of Kukdikala the maximum capacity of the paddy would be 2600 quintals and the paddy has exceeded the buffer limit, therefore Respondent No. 2 i.e. Managing Director C.G. State Marketing Federation was duty bound to lift the same. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has made a representation vide Annexure P/4 to the respondent No. 2 which may be directed to be decided.

2. Considering the fact that the agreement exists between the parties, the petitioner since has made a representation to Respondent No. 2, therefore Respondent No. 2 i.e. Managing Director C.G. State Marketing Federation is directed to decide the said application according to the terms of agreement within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

3. With the aforesaid observation/ direction, the writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Jyoti Judge