Vrihattakar Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 1266 of 2020

1. Vrihattakar Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Pandarbhatta, Village Pandarbhatta, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh Through Its Paddy Purchase Incharge (Dhaan Khareedi Prabhari), Dipak Singh, S/o Devendra Singh, Aged About 29 Years

2. Dipak Singh S/o Devendra Singh, Aged About 29 Years, Paddy Purchase Incharge (Dhaan Khareedi Prabhari), Vrihattakar Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Pandarbhatta, Village Pandarbhatta, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food And Civil Supplies, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Collector Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

3. Managing Director, Apex Bank, Pandri Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

4. Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. Through General Manager, 6th Floor, Tower - C, Commercial Complex, C B D Sector - 21, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5. District Marketing Officer Through Office Of District Marketing Federation Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

6. District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Bilaspur, Through Chief Executive Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Nehru Chowk Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Garry Mukhopadhyay, Advocate For State/Respondents 1 & 2 :

Mr. Sudeep Verma, Dy. G.A.

For Respondents 4 & 5 :

Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate For Respondent no.6 :

Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 13.07.2020

1. The present writ petition has been filed alleging the illegal action taken by the respondents contrary to the agreement which has been executed between the petitioners and the respondents.

2. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it has been informed at bar that the respondent no.2 has already instructed for registering an FIR and an FIR also stands registered against the Office Bearer of the petitioner no.1 Society.

3. In view of the fact that the FIR has already been registered against the Office Bearer of the petitioners' Society, this Court is of the firm view that the issue involved in the present writ petition becomes more of academic interest as the recourse now available to the petitioners would be that of challenging the FIR which already stands registered.

4. The present writ petition, therefore, stands disposed of reserving the right of the petitioners to avail appropriate remedies available to them under law for challenging the same.

Sd/- P. Sam Koshy Judge Khatai