Kanwal Prasad Kausik v. Collector, Bilaspur

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1874 of 2015

1. Kanwal Prasad Kausik S/o Shri Daulat Ram Kausik, Aged About 71 Years R/o Village Karra, Post Darrighat, Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Smt. Guruwari Bai, W/o Shri Baliram Rathore, Aged About 66 Years

3. Rohit Sharma, S/o Shri Bhangi Prasad Sharma, Aged About 38 Years

4. Smt. Neelima Rathore, W/o Shri Lakhan Lal Rathore, Aged About 38 Years

5. Krishna Das Vaishnav, S/o Ramratan Das Vaishnav, Aged About 52 Years

6. Mohan Yadav, S/o Raghubar Yadav, Aged About 70 Years

7. Baliram Rathore, S/o Chamru Rathore, Aged About 70 Years

8. Suresh Kumar Patel, S/o Radhelal Patel, Aged About 42 Years 2 to 8 are R/o Village Limtara, Post-Darrighat, Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur, CG ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Collector, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

3. Branch Manager, Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Mydt. Branch Masturi, Tehsil & P. S. Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

4. Society Manager, Seva Sahkari Samiti Mydt., Gataura, Regd. No. 1294, Tehsil & P. S. Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

5. Kendra Incharge, Prathmik Seva Sahkari Samiti Mydt. Dhan Uparjan Kendra, Darrighat, Tehsil & P. S. Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

6. President, Seva Sahkari Samiti Mydt. Gataura, Regd. No.1294, Tehsil & P. S. Masturi, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

---- Respondent For Petitioners : Shri Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Shri Arun Sao, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 29/10/2015

1. The petitioners are cultivators/land holders of village Limtara, Post Darrighat, Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur. In this writ petition, they have prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay the price of paddy which the petitioners have sold to the Primary Credit Cooperative Society, Darrighat/Gautora.

2. Shri Pawan Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have sold paddy during the procurement season of 2013-14, however, because of some problem in the computer entry, the Primary Credit Cooperative Society is unable to take any decision for making payment of the amount. He would submit that there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners have sold paddy through the above stated cooperative society, which is apparent from the enquiry report submitted by the Food Inspector, Masturi, therefore, appropriate direction be issued to the respondents to make payment of the amount to the petitioners at the earliest.

3. Learned State Counsel would submit that if the petitioners prefer a representation before the concerned Collector, the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law after consultation with the concerned Primary Credit Cooperative Society.

4. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that if the petitioners prefer a representation before the Collector, Bilaspur within a period of 15 days from today, the said Collector shall take decision in respect of the petitioners' grievances in consultation with the Primary Credit Cooperative Society Darrighat/Gautora in accordance with law, at the earliest, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of representation. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondents would be at liberty to decide the representation on its own merit, in accordance with law.

Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Barve