Vijay Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPPIL No. 44 of 2020

1. Vijay Sharma S/o Late Shri Ratanlal Sharma Aged About 46 Years R/o Behind Bus Stand, Near Rawabandh Talab, Ward No. 27, Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

2. Daneshwar Parihar S/o Shri Amar Singh Parihar Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Patharra, Post - Marka, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Co-Operative Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Secretary Civil Supply And Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Director Department of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate.

For Respondents/State : Shri S.C. Verma, Advocate General with Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Deputy Advocate General.

Hon'ble Shri P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment on Board Per P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice 09.06.2020 1.

The prayers in the writ petition are in the following terms: "10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the paddy purchase case of the state for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction to

respondent authorities to accept the paddy of the agriculturists and they must be paid the sale amount of the paddy immediately.

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order and direct the respondent authorities to give the seed and manure on loan to the agriculturists for the next agriculture year without getting clearance of the earlier loan.

10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order to direct the respondent authorities to not pressurize the agriculturists for payment of the loan taken by them for their agriculture in the last year. 10.5 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted." 2.

The learned Advocate General submits that the validity of the token issued by the Government for procurement of paddy was extended by three more days i.e. 20th, 21th, 22th of May, 2020. The writ petition having been filed earlier, on 4th of May, 2020, it is pointed out that the matter might have become infructuous.

3.

In the above circumstance, we are of the view that it is not at all necessary for this Court to entertain this matter as a 'Public Interest Litigation'. 4.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, we make it clear that, if any individual grievance is there with regard to the correctness of the submissions made from the part of the Advocate General, it is open for the aggrieved persons to pursue appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (P. R. Ramachandra Menon) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge Hem