Santosh Das Manikpuri v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1949 of 2020 Santosh Das Manikpuri S/o - Shri Lakhan Das Manikpuri Aged About 52 Years Occupation- Incharge Of Paddy Procurement Center Bodtara, R/o - Village Khaprikala, Police Chowki - Chilfi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. Mo. No. 8103794225, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya Raipur, Police Station - Rakhi, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Collector Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

3. General Manager Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited, 6th Floor, Tower-C, Commercial Complex Cbd, Sector 21, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Assistant Registrar Co-Operative Societies Mungeli, Police Station, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

5. District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipadan Sangh Maryadit Mungeli, Police Station, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

6. Chief Executive Officer Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Nehru Chowk Bilaspur, Police Station- Civil Line, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For State :

Mr. Sudeep Verma, Dy. GA For Res. No.3 & 5 :

Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, under instruction from Mr. P. N. Bharat, Advocates For Res. No.6 :

Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate Fpr

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 17/09/2020

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging the inaction and arbitrariness on the part of the respondents, on one hand,in not collecting paddy within the stipulated period and at the same time, in holding the petitioner responsible for the damage and the shortage caused to the paddy collected.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that once when there is a specific agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondents, it is expected that the respondents would have first adhered to the conditions stipulated in the agreement and only thereafter the respondents would have initiated appropriate action against the petitioners, if required.

3. According to the petitioner, as per the agreement, it was the duty of the respondents 3 & 5 for taking steps in lifting paddy which has not been honoured by the respondents. The further contention of the petitioner is that they have been repeatedly approaching the respondents for early lifting of paddy taking into consideration the frequent change of climate on account of which the paddy so collected by the petitioner/s were getting damaged or destroyed. According to the petitioner, as per the agreement, the respondents were also supposed to get the paddy properly insured in the event of any damage that occurs, which again, whether the respondents have discharged their liability in this regard or not is not known to the petitioners.

4. The grievance, according to the petitioner, now is that on the one hand, the respondents did not timely lift the paddy because of which it was exposed to extremely weather condition resulting in damage to the paddy. The further contention of the petitioner is that for that damage to the paddy or the shortage of paddy, if any, because of climatic reasons or any other

natural reasons, the petitioner cannot be saddled with the liability of damage of the same nor can the petitioner be held responsible for any criminal offence by registering of an FIR etc. According to the petitioner, he is apprehending coercive measures to be taken up by the respondents as has been done against the officer bearers of other similarly placed society. Counsel for the petitioner referring to two orders passed by this Court in WPC 1417/20 & WPC1448/20 submits that the present writ petition also be disposed of in similar terms. They further request that let the respondents first conduct an investigation or a preliminary inquiry in respect of the alleged shortage of paddy or damage to the paddy and thereafter reach to a conclusion as to who is actually responsible for the damage or shortage so caused and only then the authority should go in for registering of an FIR, if required.

5. Counsel appearing for the respondents submit that it is only the petitioner's apprehension that an FIR would be registered without any investigation or inquiry. It is the contention of the counsel for the respondents that due care shall be taken by the respondents firstly in determining as to who is actually responsible for the damage or shortage of paddy and only thereafter an FIR would be registered, if required.

6. Given the submissions by the counsel for the respondents and the apprehension that has been made by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition also can be disposed of in similar terms.

7. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of directing the respondents first to undertake preliminary inquiry/investigation in respect of any alleged shortage of paddy or loss caused to the respondents in the process of purchase of paddy. That in the course of inquiry, it should be found out as to whether there has been a shortage of paddy or not, there has been any damage or loss caused to the respondents or not and

whether the said shortage or damage was in fact caused because of a deliberate and willful act on the part of the petitioner or any office bearers of the petitioner and only thereafter the respondents would take appropriate steps in terms of the agreement / contract entered into between the parties.

8. 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 in the agreement. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit