VRIHATTAKAR SAHKARI SAMITI MARYADIT Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. All the petitions are heard together because common issue is being projected.

(2.) The petitioners were running paddy procurement centres and they were to procure paddy from the farmers on behalf of the C.G. State Cooperating Marketing Federation Limited (MARKFED). After purchase it was to be stored in the procurement centres and thereafter required to be transferred to various storage centres as per the direction of the MARKFED. As per Clause 4.1 of the policy of the State dtd. 29/11/2020, the paddy was to be procured by MARKFED and the policy also lays down different guidelines about the transportation of the paddy. It is submitted that in these cases no agreement was entered in between the MARKFED, State and the petitioners.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that as per Clause 4.1 of the policy, the entire procurement of paddy was to be done by MARKFED and as per Clause 16 of the policy MARKFED was responsible to transport the paddy through the transporter as per the approved rates. It is contended that pursuant to the policy the paddy procurement centres which are being run by the petitioners procured the paddy and at the time of procurement of paddy, the moisture content of the paddy was required to be to the extent of 17% and the paddy above said moisture level was not to be accepted from the framers. It is contended that for paddy procurement centres the buffer limit was fixed and if it exceeds the paddy was to be transported within 72 hours but only meager amount of paddy could be transported which resulted into huge stock of paddy into the procurement centres. It is stated that the District Cooperative Central Bank had fixed the buffer limit of stock and in case the buffer limit exceeds, then the additional paddy is required to be lifted within time.