NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 2728 of 2024
1 - Purnendra Yadav S/o Shri Motiram Yadav Aged About 42 Years
Occupation Incharge Of Paddy Procurement Center Chhatan, R/o
Village Chhatan, Police Station Fasterpur, Tahsil And District Mungeli
(C.G.) Mo. No. 8839148299 ---- Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food,
Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, New
Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Raipur, Police Station Rakhi, Tahsil And
District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Collector (Co-Operative Branch) Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.)
3 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing
Federation Limited, 6th Cloor, Tower-C, Commercial Complex Cbd,
Sector 21, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
4 - Assistant Registrar Co-Operative Societies Mungeli Tahsil And
District Mungeli (C.G.)
5 - District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipadan
Sangh Maryadit Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.)
6 - Nodal Officer Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Branch
Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.)
7 - Sub Divisional Officer Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.)
---- Respondents
Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal with Mr. Sourav Agrawal, Mr. R. S. Marhas,
Additional AG, Garry Mukhopadhyay, GA, Mr. Arvind Dubey, GA, Mr.
Akhilesh Kumar, GA, Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned GA, Ms. Upasana Mehta,
Dy. GA, Mr. Suyash Dhar Badgaiyan, Dy. GA, Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Mr.
Aman Tamboli on behalf of Mr. Sangarash Pandey, and Mr. Akash Pandey
on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for their respective
parties.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order On Board
31.05.2024
This petition has been filed seeking following relief(s):-
i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
call for entire records of the case, from the authorities.
ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct to the respondent authorities to make an enquiry
that who is the responsible for loss / damage / rotten of
the stock of the paddy within the knowledge of the
petitioner and further be please to direct to the
respondent authorities to takes appropriate steps on the
basis of enquiry, is in the interest of justice.
iii) That, any other relief/order which may deem fit
and just in the facts and circumstances of the case
including award of the costs of the petition may be given.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
working as Incharge of the paddy procurement center Chhaten, Tahsil &
District Mungeli which is controlled by concerned Seva Sahkari Samiti
Maryadit. Show cause notice annexure P-7 dated 08.05.2024 was issued by
respondent No. 4 seeking an explanation as to why there was shortage of
Paddy in the paddy procurement center during physical inspection and that
if the satisfactory explanation was not given, appropriate action would be
taken against him in accordance with law.
3. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has
already replied to the show cause notice on 14.05.2024. He submits that an
enquiry may be conducted to find out as to who was responsible for
shortage of paddy at the time of physical inspection in the paddy
procurement center and that till the enquiry is concluded, no coercive steps
should be taken against the petitioner.
4. Counsel for the respondents submit that as per the agreement
entered into between the petitioner and the respondents (annexure P-3)
there is an arbitration clause No. 14 and the grievance of the petitioner if
any can be resorted to by arbitration proceeding and therefore, this petition
is not maintainable. It is further submitted that dispute involved in this
petition may be considered and decided by the arbitrator in terms of the
agreement.
5. During the course of argument an order dated 27.05.2024 passed in
WPC No. 2678 of 2024 was brought to the notice of this Court in which the
case being based on the same facts and circumstances was disposed of by
referring the matter to the arbitrator.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
7. From the reading of pleadings and the documents it appears that the
dispute is with regard to the shortage of paddy in the paddy procurement
center found during physical inspection. Clause 14 of the agreement
(Annexure-P/03) entered into between the parties deals with arbitration,
which reads as under:
vkfcZVªs’ku %&
bl vuqca/k dh fdlh Hkh df.Mdk ls lacaf/kr fookn mRiUu gksus dh
fLFkfr esa fookn ds fu.kZ; gsrq ftys esa ftyk dysDVj dk fu.kZ;
vfUre gksxk tks mHk;i{kksa dks ekU; gksxkA dysDVj Onkjk fn;s x;s
fu.kZ; dh vihy mHk;i{kksa Onkjk lacaf/kr ftys ds laHkkxh; vk;qDr
dks dh tk ldsxhA
8. This Court in WPC No. 2678 of 2024 involving the identical issue had
referred the dispute to the arbitrator asking the parties to take shelter of the
arbitrator. In the light of said order and considering the pleadings and
documents on records, this Court is of the opinion that this petition may be
disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the arbitrator in terms of
clause 14 of the agreement within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy
of this order. Thereafter the concerned arbitrator shall decide the said
application within a further period of 45 days from the date of application
being made. For a period of 60 days, no coercive steps shall be taken
against the petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice dated 08.05.2024
issued against the petitioner.
9. The petition is thus disposed of.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
JUDGE
Jyotishi/pawan