ROOPLAL SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The petitioners herein who are the farmers have filed the petition on the ground that from 9/02/2020 to 12/02/2020 they have deposited the paddy grains with the Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Gadhadih for sale of the paddy. Because of the computer malfunction the paddy so delivered could not be entered in the records as such manual receipts were issued which affirms the fact that the petitioners have deposited the paddy which are collectively filed as Annexure P-1. It is submitted that the Tehsildar on 16/02/2020 made an inspection and found that the paddy which was kept in the premises was substandard and on 17/02/2020 inspected the record and it was found that no entry have been made in the computer or other Register of receipt but entry was made in a separate register. It is further contended that on the basis of such report of the Tehsildar Annexure P-2 on 18/02/2020 directions were issued that the paddy of the petitioners should not be purchased. It is further contended that the petitioners are not concerned as to the internal affairs of the society but the petitioners are entitled to get the amount for their paddy which the society has already accepted and the State is liable to make good the same irrespective of the fact the individual liability which may accrue to the society. Learned counsel further submits that the reply of the State would show that the procedure which has been laid down to declare the paddy to be substandard has not been followed. He would further submit that without going into that fact that the paddy delivered by the petitioners were refused to be purchased for the reason that it has not been entered in the computer, the petitioners cannot be deprived of their lawful right. It is further stated the reason which has been assigned by the Collector after direction was issued by this court in first round of litigation cannot be sustained in favour of the respondent as the respondent have changed the stand in the reply and tried to improve their act and justify the actions. It is therefore contended that the respondent be directed to pay the price of the paddy in accordance with the Government Policy and to set aside the order of the Collector dtd. 23/07/2020 (Annexure P-7).

(2.) Learned State counsel would submit that the report of the Tehsildar Annexure P-2 has not been set aside till date which contains the fact that the paddy which was found at the premises was substandard. It is further submitted that the stock of the paddy which was found at the premises which the petitioners claim to have handed over do not find place in the record as such the FIR was lodged against the society members. It is stated since the manipulation was tried to be done which is manifested by the report of the Tehsildar dtd. 18/02/2020 the petitioners are not entitled for any relief.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.