SARJURAM BAGHEL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned Govt. Advocate for the State & Mr. Harshal Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as Incharge of Paddy Procurement center Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Tarvarpur. During marketing year 2024-2025, the petitioner purchased 39763.20 quintal paddy. He further submits that out of the total stock of the paddy transported by miller 25453.54 quintal, transported by collection center 10950.82 quintal paddy and remained 3362.84 quintal paddy, which is lying as stock at paddy procurement center of the petitioner. On 21/11/2024, the respondent No.3 directed the respondent No.4 and on 19/2/2025 respondent No.1 directed the respondent No.2 for lifting the whole stock of the paddy for paddy procurement centers till 28/2/2025 but the stock of the paddy are still lying at the paddy procurement center of the petitioner. He further submits that on 12/11/2024, the respondent No.1 amended the clause 15.8 and 15.9 of the paddy purchase policy 2024-2025, according to which, after the last date of paddy procurement in kharif marketing year 2024-25, all the paddy stored in the procurement center by Mark-fed will be lifted within one month through miller and transporters, if paddy remains in the procurement center ever after one month, then the proposal will be sent by the Food Department to the Finance Department to provide relief to the committee on the quantity of remaining paddy for lifting.

(3.) Learned counsel also submits that the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 failed to lift the stock of the paddy from paddy procurement center of the petitioner within the prescribed time i.e. 28/2/2025 as per the paddy procurement policy 2024-25 and due to the dryness, the weight has been reduced, which has been ignored by the respondent authorities and orally threatening to fixed the responsibility of the petitioner, if any loss of weight occurred in the stock of the paddy. Learned counsel also submits that the case of the petitioner squarely covers by the decision dtd. 27/5/2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPC No.2651/2025. Therefore, this petition may be disposed of in terms of order dtd. 27/5/2025 passed in WPC No.2651/2025.