Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Kharora v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 949 OF 2020 1.
Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Kharora, Registration No. 1275, Dhan Uparjan Kendra Kharorar, through its Centre Incharge, Arjun Narmada S/o Bhagirathi Narmada, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Singhanpur, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund (CG) 2.
Dhan Uparjan Kendra Gourtek of Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Kharora, Registration No.1275, through its Incharge Nirakar Choudhari, S/o Ramcharan Choudhari, aged about 30 years, R/o Village Pitaipali, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund (CG) 3.
Dhan Uparjan Kendra Singhanpur of Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahkari Samiti Kharora, Registration No.1275, through its Incharge Raghubir Patel, S/o Dhanurjay Patel, aged about 34 years, R/o Village Kumhari, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund (CG) ... Petitioners versus 1.
State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 2.
Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Cooperative Society Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 3.
Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG) 4.
District Mark-Fed Officer, Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipnan Sangh, Mahasamund District Mahasamund (CG) 5.
Deputy Registrar, Societies, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG) 6.
District Cooperative Central Bank Maryadit, through its CEO, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) 7.
Nodal Officer, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG) ... Respondents For Petitioners :
Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate.
For Respondent-State :
Mr. Amrito Das, Addl. Advocate General.
For Respondent-Federation :
Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 23/ 03/2020 1.
The dispute in the present Writ Petition substantially is that of non-lifting of paddy by Respondent No.4-Federation.
2.
According to the Petitioners, due to the frequent changing of climate and the rains and hailstorms frequent occurring, the paddy which is lying open is getting destroyed and damaged and the Respondent No.4-Federation were supposed to lift it within 72 hours which they have not done and therefore the Petitioners approached this Court for a direction to Respondent No.4-Federation for an early lifting of paddy. 3.
Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Counsel for Respondent No.4 submits that the Federation as early as on 24.1.2020 had permitted the Petitioners that they themselves can get the paddy lifted and transported as per clause 2.6 of the
agreement to the nearest storage centre of Respondent No.4-Federation. According to the learned Counsel for Respondent No.4-Federation, this liberty the Petitioners should have invoked at the earliest and should have got the paddy lifted and delivered which they are still free to do it by 31.3.2020.
4.
Given the said submission by the learned Counsel for Respondent No.4Federation, this Court is of the opinion that the present Writ Petition itself can be disposed of giving the liberty to the Petitioners to transport the paddy and delivered it at the nearest storage centre of the Respondent No.4-Federation. In case of any doubt or confusion so far as the storage centre at which the paddy has to be delivered, the Petitioner-Society can approach the Respondent No.4-Federation who shall issue appropriate guidelines or instructions to the Petitioner informing them about the destination at which the paddy has to be delivered. In the event, if there is any further dispute regarding the quantity or quality of the paddy etc., all those issues would be resolved in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties and the standards and specifications provided for the same.
5.
The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge /sharad/