State Duty-Bound To Timely Lift Paddy Stock From Procurement Centers To Avert Financial Loss And Natural Hazards: Chhattisgarh High Court
By Saahas Arora
The Chhattisgarh High Court has directed the State to lift paddy stored at Adim Jaati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Marayadit Kulhariya (petitioner Society) to avoid financial loss to the Society due to prolonged storage and non-payment of commission.
In this regard, Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad held,
“…it appears that the quantity of paddy is being lifted from the concerned procurement centers time to time and the time for lifting paddy has been extended several times. From the submissions made by the counsel for the respondent State, it seems that the State Government is considering a decision regarding the lifting of paddy beyond the extended time. Furthermore, since the paddy has been collected by the concerned procurement centers in accordance with Government policy and the agreements entered into by the parties, it is the duty of the State to collect the said paddy whereas for various reasons, the paddy could not be collected on time. Since the State Government has extended the lifting time repeatedly, it is expected that considering the welfare nature of the State, the paddy would be lifted from the concerned procurement centers. This act is to prevent damage to the collected paddy due to the efflux of time, climatic conditions, natural hazards such as mice and other insects and to the fact that the rainy season is proximate.”
Background
The Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by the petitioner Society, praying before the Court to direct the State respondents to lift paddy stored at the petitioner Society and subsequently pay the commission of the said purchase to the Society.
It was the case of the petitioner Society that the inaction of the Respondents in not lifting the paddy from the petitioner society was wholly arbitrary, unjust, and contrary to the applicable legal framework governing procurement operations. The continuous non-lifting of the paddy was not only causing loss to the petitioner which was burdened with the financial expenditure and responsibility of storage of the paddy but was also leading to the deterioration of the paddy due to prolonged and improper storage conditions. It was further submitted that the situation, if allowed to persist, would inevitably result in loss to the public exchequer, as the damaged stock would become unfit for distribution or sale, thereby wasting valuable public resources. Thus, it was argued that such inaction was not only detrimental to the petitioner but also violative of public interest, as the resultant loss to State Revenue directly affected the broader rights of the public and undermined effective governance.
On the contrary, the State reasoned that while the petitioner’s plea could be considered to some extent, it was attempting to take advantage of the climatic conditions and the natural driage of the paddy. They further submitted that the State Government was expected to take a decision on this matter and once the decision was taken, the petitioners would be informed of the same.
Additionally, MARKFED, which was the agency that had taken the responsibility of lifting the paddy, submitted that any deficit would be addressed by an inquiry and decision taken by the State Government. Additionally, it submitted that there were no obstacles to lifting, and repeated directions from both Central and State Governments had facilitated the operations. Lastly, it was contended that while the deadline for lifting had been extended multiple times, the petitioner’s grievances had been adequately addressed, with only a small quantity of paddy remaining.
The Single Judge held that the State is expected to lift the paddy from the concerned procurement centers keeping in mind the damage which can be caused to the collected paddy alongwith the natural hazards which unattended paddy might cause, particularly in the rainy season.
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court directed the respondent authorities to, “…lift the paddy stored in the procurement centers according to verification of their weight and quality and give a receipt of the same to the petitioner. It is made clear that the actual weight at the time of lifting of the paddy will be considered by the respondent authorities.”
Case Details:
Case Number: WPC No. 2133 of 2025
Case Title: Adim Jaati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Marayadit Kulhariya v. State Of Chhattisgarh and others