Chattisgarh High Court
Yash Rice Mill vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 June, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:26471
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 1777 of 2023
1 - M/s Kesharwani Rice Mill Through Proprietor Mr. Manoj Gupta S/o
Late Badri Prasad Gupta Age -55 Years R/o Post Sivni, Marwahi,
District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh
2 - M/s Daksh Food Insustries Through Proprietor Mr. Harsh Kumar
Goyal S/o Shankar Lal Agrawal Age -34 Years R/o Marwahi Road,
Pendra, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh
3 - M/s Laxmi Agro Industries Through Proprietor Mr. Akshay
Chhabaria S/o Ashok Chhabaria Age -30 Years, R/o Village Kudri ,
Pendra District Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
4 - M/s Sai Agro Through Proprietor Mr. Ram Charan Sahu S/o Late
Gorela Sahu Age-48 Years R/o Village Lerkeni Post Dhobhar, Marwahi,
District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh
5 - M/s Maa Narmada Agrotech Through Proprietor Mr. Gagan Agrawal
S/o Late Ashok Agrawal Age -37 Years R/o Village Madna Pendra
Road, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh
6 - M/s Maa Narmada Rice Product Through Proprietor Mr. Geeta
Agrawal W/o Late Ashok Agrawal Age 52 Years R/o Village Madna
Pendra Road, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh
2
7 - M/s J.P. Agrawal Agrotech Through Proprietor Mr. Suyash Agrawal
S/o Gaya Prasad Agrawal Aged -27 Years R/o Village Anjani, Pendra
Road
8 - M/s J.P. Agrawal And Sons Cold Storage Pvt Ltd. Through Mr. Gaya
Prasad Agrawal S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Agrawal Age-59 Years R/o
Village Anjani, Pendra Road, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi,
Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food,
Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Chhattisgarh State Co-Poerative Marketing Federation Limited
Through Managing Director, 6th Floor, Tower-C, Commercial Complex,
Cbd, Sector -21, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - District Marketing Officer, Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative
Marketing Federation Limited, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi,
Chhattisgarh
4 - Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Through
Managing Director Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Collector District Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
6 - Shyam Industries Anjani, Gourela Through Proprietor Mr. Fakir
Chand Agrawal S/o Niranjan Lal Agrawal Aged -75 Years R/o Samta
Nagar, Ward No. 15, Gourela, Tehsil Pendra Road, District Gourela
Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
3
WPC No. 261 of 2024
1 – M/s Kesharwani Rice Mill Through Proprietor Mr. Manoj Gupta S/o
Late Badri Prasad Gupta Aged 55 Years R/o Post Sivni, Marwahi,
District Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
2 – M/s Daksh Food Industries Through Proprietor Mr. Harsh Kumar
Goyal S/o Shankar Lal Agrawal Aged 34 Years R/o Marwahi Road,
Pendra
3 – M/s Laxmi Agro Industries Through Proprietor Mr. Akshay
Chhabaria S/o Ashok Chhabaria Age 30 Years R/o Village Kudri
Pendra
4 – M/s Maa Narmada Agrotech Through Proprietor Mr. Gagan Agrawal
S/o Late Ashok Agrawal Age 37 Years R/o Village Madna, Pendra
Road
5 – M/s Maa Narmada Rice Product Through Proprietor Mr. Geeta
Agrawal W/o Late Ashok Agrawal Age 52 Years R/o Village Madna,
Pendra Road
6 – M/s J.P. Agrawal Agrotech Through Proprietor Mr. Suyash Agrawal
S/o Gaya Prasad Agrawal Age 27 Years R/o Village Anjani, Pendra
Road
7 – M/s J.P. Agrawal And Sons Coldstorage Pvt Ltd Through Mr. Gaya
Prasad Agrawal S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Agrawal Age 59 Years R/o
Village Anjani, Pendra Road
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretray, Department Of Food,
Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
4
2 – Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited
Through Managing Director, 6th Floor, Tower C, Commercial Complex,
Cbd, Sector, -21, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3 – District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative
Marketing Federation Limited, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi,
Chhattisgarh.
4 – Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporatoin Limited, Through
Managing Director Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5 – Collector, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
6 – Shyam Industries Anjani, Gourela Through Proprietor Mr. Fakir
Chand Agrawal S/o Niranjan Lal Agrawal Aged -7 Year R/o Samta
Nagar, Ward No. 15, Gourela Tehsil Pendra Road, District : Gaurela-
Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh
— Respondent(s)
WPC No. 5168 of 2023
1 – M/s Kesharwani Rice Mill Through Proprietor Mr. Manoj Gupta, S/o
Late Badri Prasad Gupta Age 55 Years, R/o Post Sivni, Marwahi,
District Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
2 – M/s Daksh Food Industries Through Proprietor Mr. Harsh Kumar
Goyal, S/o Shankar Lal Agrawal, Age 34 Years, R/o Marwahi Road,
Pendra, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh
3 – M/s Laxmi Agro Industries Through Proprietor Mr. Akshay
Chhabaria S/o Ashok Chhabaria Age 30 Years, R/o Village Kudri,
Pendra, District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
4 – M/s Maa Narmada Agrotech Through Proprietor Mr. Gagan
Agrawal, S/o Late Ashok Agrawal, Age 37 Years, R/o Village Madna,
Pendra Road, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
5
5 – M/s Maa Narmada Rice Product Through Proprietor Mr. Geeta
Agrawal, W/o Late Ashok Agrawal Age 52 Years, R/o Village Madna,
Pendra Road, District Gourela, Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
6 – M/s J.P. Agrawal Agrotech Through Proprietor Mr. Suyash Agrawal
S/o Gaya Prasad Agrawal, Age 27 Years, R/o Village Anjani, Pendra
Road, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
7 – M/s J.P. Agrawal And Sons Coldstorage Pvt. Ltd. Through Mr. Gaya
Prasad Agrawal, S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Agrawal, Age 59 Years R/o
Village Anjani, Pendra Road, District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi,
Chhattisgarh.
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food,
Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 – Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited
Through Managing Director, 6th Floor, Tower-C, Commercial Complex,
Cbd, Sector-21, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3 – District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative
Marketing Federation Limited, District Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi,
Chhattisgarh.
4 – Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Through
Managing Director Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
5 – Collector District Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
6 – Shyam Food Products Through Proprietor Mr. Gopal Krishna
Agrawal, S/o Fakir Chand Agrawal, Aged 47 Years R/o Samta Nagar,
6
Ward No. 15, Gourela, Tehsil Pendra Road, District Gourela Pendra
Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
— Respondent(s)
WPC No. 321 of 2024
1 – M/s Kesharwani Rice Mill Through Proprietor Mr. Manoj Gupta S/o
Late Badri Prasad Gupta Aged About – 55 Years, R/o Post – Sivni,
Marwahi, District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
2 – M/s Daksh Food Industries Through Proprietor Mr. Harsh Kumar
Goyal S/o Shankar Lal Agrawal Aged – 34 Years, R/o Marwahi Road,
Pendra, District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
3 – M/s Laxmi Agro Industries Through Proprietor Mr. Akshay
Chhabaria S/o Ashok Chhabaria Age – 30 Years, R/o Village – Kudri,
Pendra, District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
4 – M/s Maa Narmada Agrotech Through Proprietor Mr. Gangan
Agrawal S/o Late Ashok Agrawal Aged – 37 Years, R/o Village – Madna,
Pendra Road, District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
5 – M/s Maa Narmada Rice Product Through Proprietor Mr. Geeta
Agrawal W/o Late Ashok Agrawal Age – 52 Years, R/o Village – Madna,
Pendra Road, District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
6 – M/s J.P. Agrawal Agrotech Through Proprietor Mr. Suyash Agrawal
S/o Gaya Prasad Agrawal, Age – 27 Years, R/o Village – Anjani, Pendra
Road, District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
7 – M/s J.P. Agrawal And Sons Coldstorages Pvt Ltd. Through Mr. Gaya
Prasad Agrawal S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Agrawal Age -59 Years, R/o
Village – Anjani, Pendra Road, District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi,
Chhattisgarh.
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
7
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food,
Civil Supplies And Consumer Portection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
Nagar, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 – Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited
Through Managing Director, 6th Floor, Tower -C, Commercial Complex,
Cbd, Sector -21, Atal Nagar, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3 – District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative
Marketing Federation Limited, District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi,
Chhattisgarh.
4 – Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Through
Managing Director Atal Nagar, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
5 – Collector, District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
6 – Yash Rice Mill Through Proprietor Mr. Gopal Krishna Agrawal S/o
Fakir Chand Agrawal Aged – 47 Years, R/o Samta Nagar, Ward No. 15,
Gourela, Tehsil – Pendra Road, District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi,
Chhattisgarh.
— Respondent(s)
WPC No. 2186 of 2023
1 – Shyam Industries Anjani, Gaurela A Proprietorship Firm, Having Its
Registered Office At Rani Durgawati Industrial Area Anjani, Gourela,
Through Its Sole Proprietor Namely Shri Fakir Chand Agrawal, S/o
Late Shri Niranjan Lal Agrawal, Aged About 75 Years , R/o Samta
Nagar, Ward No. 15, Gourela, Tahsil Pendra Road, Police Station
Gourela, District -Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi Chhattisgarh.
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Food Civil Supplies And
Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya
8
Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
2 – Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited,
Through Its General Manager, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative
Marketing Federation Limited, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3 – General Manager, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing
Federation Limited, 6th Floor-21, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur
District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
4 – Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing
Federation Limited, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,
District – Raipur Chhattisgarh.
5 – District Marketing Officer, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing
Federation Limited District – Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi Chhattisgarh
6 – Collector, Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi, District Gourela-Pendra-
Marwahi Chhattisgarh.
7 – Managing Director, State Civil Supplies Corporation Nawa Raipur,
Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
8 – State Bank Of India Branch Pendra Road, Through Its Branch
Manager, State Bank Of India, Pendra Road, District – Gourela-Pendra-
Marwahi Chhattisgarh
— Respondent(s)
WPC No. 2100 of 2023
1 – Yash Modern Food Product, Gourela A Proprietorship Firm, Having
Its Registered Office At Rani Durgawati Industrial Area Anjani, Gourela,
Through Its Sole Proprietor Namely Shri Ashish Agrawal, S/o Shri Fakir
Chand Agrawal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Samta Nagar, Ward No. 15,
Gourela, Tehsil Pendra Road, Police Station Gourela, District :
Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh
—Petitioner(s)
9Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Food Civil Supplies And
Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya,
Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh2 – Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited
Through Its General Manager, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative
Marketing Federation Limited, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa
Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh3 – General Manager Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing
Federation Limited, 6th Floor, Tower C, Commercial Complex, C B D
Sector-21, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar Raipur, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh4 – Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing
Federation Limited, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh5 – District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing
Federation Limited, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh6 – Collector Gourela- Pendra- Marwahi, District : Gaurela-Pendra-
Marwahi, Chhattisgarh
7 – Managing Director State Civil Supplies Corporation Nawa Raipur
Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
8 – State Bank Of India Branch Pendra Road, Through Its Branch
Manager, State Bank Of India, Pendra Road, District : Gaurela-Pendra-
Marwahi, Chhattisgarh
— Respondent(s)
10
WPC No. 2189 of 2023
1 – Yash Rice Mill A Proprietorship Firm, Having Its Registered Office At
Rani Durgawati Industrial Area Anjani, Gourela, Through Its Sole
Proprietor Namely Shri Gopal Krishna Agrawal, S/o Shri Fakir Chand
Agrawal, Aged About47 Years, R/o Pendra Road, Police Station
Gourela, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Food Civil Supplies And
Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya,
Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 – Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Fedration Limited
Through Its General Manager, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative
Marketing Fedration Limited, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 – General Manager Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing
Federation Limited, 6th Floor, Tower C, Commercial Complex, C B D,
Sector 21, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
4 – Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing
Federation Limited, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
5 – District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing
Federation Limited, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh
6 – Collector Gourela Pendra Marwahi, District Gourela Pendra
Marwahi Chhattisgarh
11
7 – Managing Director State Civil Supplies Corporation Nawa Raipur,
Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
8 – State Bank Of India Branch Pendra Road, Through Its Branch
Manager, State Bank Of India, Pendra Road, District Gourela Pendra
Marwahi Chhattisgarh
— Respondent(s)
WPC No. 2178 of 2023
1 – Shyam Food Products, Gourela A Proprietorship Firm, Having Its
Registered Office At Rani Durgawati Industrial Area Anjani, Gourela,
Through Its Sole Proprietor Namely Shri Gopal Krishna Agrawal, S/o
Shri Fakir Chand Agrawal, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Samta Nagar,
Ward No. 15, Gourela, Tehsil Pendra Road, Police Station Gourela,
District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.)
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Food Civil Supplies And
Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya,
Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2 – Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited
Through Its General Manager, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative
Marketing Federation Limited, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa
Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3 – General manager Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing
Federation limited, 6th Floor, Tower C, Commercial Complex, CBD
sector-21, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh.
4 – Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing
Federation Limited, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Dist.
Raipur Chhattisgarh.
12
5 – District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing
Federation Limited, District Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.)
6 – Collector Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi, District Gourela-Pendra-
Marwahi (C.G.)
7 – Managing Director State Civil Supplies Corporation Nawa Raipur,
Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)
8 – State Bank Of India Branch Pendra Road, Through Its
BranchManager, State Bank Of India, Pendra Road, District Gourela-
Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.)
— Respondent(s)
WPC No. 1792 of 2023
1 – M/s Kesharwani Rice Mill Through Proprietor Mr. Manoj Gupta S/o
Late Badri Prasad Gupta Age-55 Years R/o Post – Sivni, Marwahi,
District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
2 – M/s Daksh Food Industries Through Proprietor Mr. Harsh Kumar
Goyal S/o Shankar Lal Agrawal Age-34 Years R/o Marwahi Road
Pendra, District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
3 – M/s Laxmi Agro Industries Through Proprietor Mr. Akshay
Chhabaria S/o Ashok Chhabaria Age -30 Years, R/ovillage Kudri,
Pendra, District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
4 – M/s Sai Agro Through Proprietor Mr. Ram Charan Sahu S/o Late
Gorelal Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Lerkeni, Post Dhobhar Marwahi
, District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
5 – M/s Maa Narmada Agrotech Through Proprietor Mr. Gagan Agrawal
S/o Late Ashok Agrawal Age -37 Years, R/o Village- Madna, Pendra
Road, District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
13
6 – M/s Maa Narmada Rice Product Through Proprietor Mr. Geeta
Agrawal W/o Late Ashok Agrawal Age 52 Years R/o Village – Madna,
Pendra Road, District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
7 – M/s J.P. Agrawal Agrotech Through Proprietor Mr. Suyash Agrawal
S/o Gaya Prasad Agrawal Age 27 Years. R/o Village – Anjani, Pendra
Road, District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
8 – M/s J.P. Agrawal And Sons Coldstorage Pvt. Ltd., Through Mr. Gaya
Prasad Agrawal S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Agrawal Age 59 Years R/o
Village Anjani, Pendra Road, District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi,
Chhattisgarh.
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through – Secretary, Department Of Food,
Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
Nagar, District -Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2 – Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited
Through Managing Director, 6th Floor, Tower-C, Commercial Complex,
Cbd, Sector-21, Atal Nagar, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3 – District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative
Marketing Federation Limited, District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi,
Chhattisgarh.
4 – Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Through
Managing Director, Atal Nagar, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
5 – Collector District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
6 – Yash Modern Food Products Gourela, Through Proprietor Mr.
Ashish Agrawal S/o Fakir Chand Agrawal Aged About 40 Years, R/o
14
Samta Nagar, Ward No. 15, Gourela, Tahsil-Pendra Road, District –
Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh.
— Respondent(s)
WPC No. 1778 of 2023
1 – M/s Kesharwani Rice Mill Through Proprietor Mr. Manoj Gupta, S/o
Late Badri Prasad Gupta Age 55 Years R/o Post Sivni, Marwahi,
District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh
2 – M/s Daksh Food Industries Through Proprietor Mr. Harsh Kumar
Goyal, S/o Shankar Lal Agrawal, Age 34 Years R/o Marwahi Road,
Pendra, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh
3 – M/s Laxmi Agro Induatries Through Proprietor Mr. Akshay
Chhabaria S/o Ashok Chhabaria Age 30 Years R/o Village Kudri,
Pendra District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh
4 – M/s S A I A G R O Through Proprietor Mr. Ram Charan Sahu S/o
Late Gorelal Sahu Age 48 Years, R/o Village Larkeni, Post Dhobhar,
Marwahi, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh
5 – M/s Maa Naramada Agrotech Through Proprietor Mr. Gagan
Agrawal S/o Late Ashok Agrawal Age 37 Years, R/o Village Madna,
Pendra Road, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh
6 – M/s Maa Narmada Rice Product Through Proprietor Mr. Geeta
Agrawal W/o Late Ashok Agrawal Age 52 Years, R/o Village Madna,
Pendra Road, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh
7 – M/s J.P. Agrawal Agrotech Through Proprietor Mr. Suyansh
Agrawal, Age 27 Years R/o Village Anjani, Pendra Road, District
Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh
8 – M/s J.P. Agrawal And Sons Goldstorae Pvt. Ltd. Through Mr. Gaya
Prasad Agrawal, S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Agrawal Age 59 Years R/o
15
Village Anjani, Pendra Road, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi
Chhattisgarh
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food,
Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 – Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited
Through Managing Director, 6th Floor, Tower, C, Commericial
Complex, C B D, Sector 2, Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 – District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh State Co-Oprative Marketing
Federation Limited, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh
4 – Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Through
Managing Director, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
5 – Collector District Gourela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh
6 – Shyam Food Products Through Proprietor Mr. Gopal Krishna
Agrawal W/o Fakir Chand Agrawal, Aged 47, R/o Samta Nagar, Ward
No. 15, Gourela, Tehsil Pendra Road, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi
Chhattisgarh
— Respondent(s)
WPC No. 1885 of 2023
1 – M/s Kesharwani Rice Mill Through Proprietor Mr. Manoj Gupta S/o
Late Badri Prasad Gupta Age – 55 Years R/o Post – Sivni, Marwahi,
District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh
16
2 – M/s Daksh Food Industries Through Proprietor Mr. Harsh Kumar
Goyal S/o Shankar Lal Agrawal Age – 34 Years R/o Marwahi Road,
Pendra District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh
3 – M/s Laxmi Agro Insustries Through Proprietor Mr. Akshay
Chhabaria S/o Ashok Chhabaria Age – 30 Years R/o Village – Kudri,
Pendra, District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh
4 – M/s Sai Agro Through Proprietor Mr. Ram Charan Sahu S/o Late
Gorelal Sahu Age – 48 Years R/o Village – Lerkeni, Post – Dhobhar,
Marwahi, District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh
5 – M/s Maa Narmada Agrotech Through Proprietor Mr. Gagan Agrawal
S/o Late Ashok Agrawal Age – 37 Years R/o Village – Madna, Pendra
Road, District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh
6 – M/s Maa Narmada Rice Product Through Proprietor Mr. Geeta
Agrawal W/o Late Ashok Agrawal Age – 52 Years R/o Village – Madna,
Pendra Road, District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh
7 – M/s J.P. Agrawal Agrotech Through Proprietor Mr. Suyash Agrawal
S/o Gaya Prasad Agrawal Age – 27 Years R/o Village – Anjani, Pendra
Road, District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh
8 – M/s J.P. Agrawal And Sons Coldstorage Pvt Ltd Through Mr. Gaya
Prasad Agrawal S/o Late Jagdish Prasad Agrawal Age – 59 Years R/o
Village – Anjani, Pendra Road, District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi,
Chhattisgarh
—Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 – State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food,
Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
Nagar, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh
17
2 – Chhattisgarh State Co – Operative Marketing Federation Limited
Through Managing Director, 6th Floor, Tower – C Commercial Complex
C B D, Sector – 21, Atal Nagar, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 – District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh State Co- Operative
Marketing Federation Limited, District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi,
Chhattisgarh.
4 – Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Through
Managing Director Atal Nagar, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5 – Collector District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi, Chhattisgarh
6 – Yash Rice Mill Through Proprietor Mr. Gopal Krishna Agrawal S/o
Fakir Chand Agrawal Aged – 47 Years R/o Samta Nagar, Ward No. 15,
Gourela, Tehsil – Pendra Road, District – Gourela Pendra Marwahi,
Chhattisgarh
— Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Sr. Advocate
assisted by Shri Siddarth Shukla and Ms.
Samriddhi Shukla, Advocates in WPC No.
1777/2023,1778/2023,1792/2023,1885/2023
5168/2023,261/2024 and 321/2024 and Shri
Manoj Paranjape, Advocate in WPC No.
2100/2023, 2178/2023,2186/2023 and
2189/2023
For Respondent/State : Shri Praveen Das, Dy. AG
For Respondent No.2 & 3 : Shri Vikram Sharma, Advocate
: Shri Vijay Shankar Mishra, Advocate
For Respondent No.6 Shri Mayank Mulchandani, Advocate on
:
behalf of Shri P.R.Patankar, Advocate and
For Respondent No. 8
Shri Ashok Soni, Advocate(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)
Order on Board
20/06/2025
The batch of petitions ie. WPC No. 1777/2023,
181778/2023,1792/2023,1885/2023, 5168/2023,261/2024 and 321/2024
have ben filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India challenging the order dated 27th March 2023 whereby the
respondent No.1 has exercised the powers of the Court under Section
7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in an appeal without
jurisdiction with ulterior motive to favour the respondent No.6 by
imposing penalty of Rs. 5 Lacs. The petitioner had deposited eight
forged Bank guarantees of Rs. 7.50 crores out of Rs. 13.50 crores for
the year 2021-22 and 2022-23, five forged Bank guarantees of Rs. 5
crores with respondent No.3 in respect of procurement of paddy for the
Kharif Marketing Season of 2021-22 and 2022-23. The petitioners thus,
have filed these batch of petitions seeking the following reliefs:
“i. to stay the effect and operation of the order dated
27th March 2023 issued by respondent No.1 during
the pendency of the writ petition.
ii) to stay the payment of respondent No.6 in regard to
Custom Rice Milling for Kharif Marketing Season
2021-22 and Kharif Marketing Season 2021-22 till the
time action is not taken against respondent No.6 in
accordance with law.
iii) pass any other further order(s) a this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case and in the interest of
justice.”
2. The batch of petitions ie. WPC No. 2100/2023,
2178/2023,2186/2023 and 2189/2023 have been filed by the
petitioners challenging the order dated 27.03.2023 passed by the State
Government whereby, in view of Clause 9 of the Chhattisgarh Custom
Milling Order, 2016, a fine of Rs, 5 Lacs has been imposed and it has
19
been held that the petitioners have committed certain irregularities. It is
alleged that on 29.12.2022, order of blacklisting was passed and the
petitioner has challenged the said order by filing writ petition before this
Court (WPC No. 176/2023) and vide order dated 12.01.2023, the
petitions were allowed and the order of blacklisting was set aside. The
petitioners by way of this petition are seeking for the following reliefs:
10.1. To set aside and quash the order dated 27 th
March 2023 issued by the respondent No.1 being
contrary to Chhattisgarh Rice Custom Milling
Order 2016 and Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
10.2 To direct the respondent NO.1 to act in
accordance with law against the respondent NO.6
for the illegal action within time bound manner.
10.3. Pass any other relief/order or direction, as
this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper looking to
the facts and circumstances of the case and in the
interest of justice, along with cost of the
proceedings.”
3. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioners in WPC No.
1777/2023, 1778/2023, 1792/2023, 1885/2023, 5168/2023, 261/2024
and 321/2024 and respondent No.6 are rice millers of District Gourela
Pendra-Marwahi and procure paddy from the respondents No. 2 & 3
for custom milling and deposit the rice with respondent No.4. The
entire process of rice custom milling is governed by the Chhattisgarh
Rice Custom Milling Order 2016 and agreements were executed
between the respondent No.3 and respective parties for completion of
the procedure. Before procurement of paddy from respondent No.3, it
is mandatory for the party to deposit the Bank Guarantees and for the
Kharif Marketing Season 2021-22 and 2022-23 the Custom Milling
20
Policy (Annexure P/2) for procurement of Rice under support Price
wherein Clause 6.13/6.14 stipulates that Rile millers had to deposit
security/cash guarantee equivalent to the price of paddy prior to
delivery of paddy to rice millers. The petitioners and respondent No.6
after getting registered with respondent No.2 and permission from
respondents No. 3 & 5 executed agreement with the rice millers after
deposit of Bank guarantee. However, the petitioners came to know that
the respondent No.6 had been depositing forged and fabricated bank
guarantees issued in the name of State Bank of India with respondent
No.3 for the Kharif Marketing Season 2021-22 and 2022-23 for
procurement of paddy for custom milling which is a violation of Clause
6.13 and 6.14. The petitioners had made several complaints with
respondent No.1,5, Superintendent of Police, Chief Secretary for taking
action against respondent No.6 for cheating the State exchequer.
4. Respondent No.5 after constituting Inquiry Committee
comprising of Collector,Food Inspector and others had undertaken the
investigation and filed report dated 28th December 2022 wherein it has
been concluded that the respondent No.6 had deposited forged bank
guarantee in the year 2021-22 and 2022-23 for procurement of Rice
Custom Milling which falls under Financial Misappropriation. This
report has been forwarded to the respondent No.1 for imposition of
punishment to respondent No.6 and acting over the same, respondent
No.6 was blacklisted for the rest of Kharif Marketing Season 2022-23
and it was further directed not to issue DO in favour of respondent
No.6 and for not taking any further custom milling of rice from it and
FIR No. 09/2023 was registered against the respondent No.6 at police
station Gaurela for the offence under Sections 420 and 34 IPC.
21
5. Being aggrieved by this order dated 29th December 2022, the
respondent No.6 preferred WPC No. 147/2023 before this Court and
vide order dated 12th January 2023, this Court had set aside the order
dated 29.12.2022 passed by the respondent NO.1in lieu of violation of
Principal of Natural Justice and further liberty was granted to the
respondent No.1 to undertake appropriate steps in accordance with
law. Thereafter the petitioners again filed letter dated 23.01.2023 with
the respondent No.1 to re-initiate the legal action the respondent No.6
for depositing forged and fabricated bank guarantees. The respondent
No.1 acting contrary to Chhattisgarh Rice Custom Milling Order, 2016
had conducted the proceedings against respondent No.6 finding guilty
of financial misappropriation and causing financial loss of State
exchequer and penalty of Rs. 5 lacs was imposed by exercising
Section 7 read with Section of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955
and Section 9 of the Chhatisgarh Rice Custom Milling Order, 2016 in
an arbitrary manner without jurisdiction to favour the respondent No.6.
6. Facts of the case in the respective petitions ie. WPC No.
2100/2023, 2178/2023, 2186/2023 and 2189/2023 are that on
7.12.2021 the petitioners entered into agreement with the Chhattisgarh
State Cooperative Federation for Custom Milling for Lot No. 5335 to
5535 for a period of one year ie. 2021-22 and the said agreement was
executed for 64,000 quintals of Arwa rice. One more agreement was
executed for Lot No. 5818 to 6018 and the petitioner had furnished
bank guarantee from State Bank of India to the tune of Rs. 8.50 crores
for year 2021-22. The cross verification of bank guarantee was carried
out by the District Marketing officer, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative
22
Federation and approved by the Branch Manager, State Bank of India,
Pendra Road. In addition to that, several post dates cheques were
submitted by the petitioners to the department and NOC was issued.
Similar agreement was executed for the year 2022-23 for Lot No. 702-
882 and 1596 to 1686 and for which the petitioners had furnished bank
guarantee to the tune of Rs. 5 cores vide agreements dated
09.11.2022. The letter was sent to the Branch Manager, SBI Pendra
Road for verification by the District Marketing Officer and lifted 51,460
quintals out of 64000 quintals of paddy as per the agreement however
the petitioners were restricted to lift any paddy as per the impugned
order on the complaint made by one Hariom that the petitioners firm
and other rice millers have furnished the bank guarantees of total Rs.
44 crores for the Kharif Marketing Year 2021-22 and out of the said
amount Rs. 20 crores of bank guarantees were forged. Notice was
served to the petitioner on 23.12.2022 for recording of the statement
and thereafter on 30.12.2022 the representation was made by the
proprietor of the petitioner firm to the Additional Collector seeking
documents. Thereafter order of blacklisting was issued against the
petitioner firm stating that the bank guarantee furnished by the
petitioner firm of Rs. 5 crores for the Kharif Marketing Season 2022-23
has been found to be forged. After passing the order on 12.01.2023 by
this Court in WPC No. 176/2023, show cause notice was issued on
02.02.2023 and the petitioners were directed to appear before the
State authorities on 10.02.2023 and in reply the petitioners had
submitted the application for cross-examination of the witnesses,
examination of the witnesses in support thereof and for furnishing and
supplying the copies of those bank guarantees which are alleged to be
23
forged.
7. On 03.03.2023, the applications filed by the petitioners were
allowed by the authorities and on 13.03.2023, the State Government
issued order directing Lokesh Kumar Dewangan, Bhupendra Singh
Gautam and Hariom Sharan Kashyap to appear before the State
authorities on 20.03.2023 however they could not be examined on
account of Vidhan Sabha Session and thereafter impugned order
dated 27.03.2023 has been passed by the State government and order
of black listing has been converted to imposing of fine of Rs. 5 lacs
even after the order of this Court to afford opportunity of hearing to
adduce evidence.
8. Contention of Shri Bhaduri, learned Sr. Counsel for the
petitioners is that the impugned order dated 27 th March 2023 issued by
the respondent No.1 is without jurisdiction and void ab initio being
passed in contravention of Chhattisgarh Rice Custom Milling Order,
2016 and Essential Commodities Act, 1955. He submits that the
respondent NO.1 is not vested with the power of an Appellate Authority
under Chhattisgarh Rice Custom Milling Order, 2016. It is settled law
that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the
thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods are
necessarily forbidden. Reference has been laid upon Dharani Sugars
and Chemicals Ltd. V. Union of India reported in (2019) 5 SCC 480.
The impugned order is completely silent on the point under which
provision of law it has been passed. Sections 3 & 7 of the Essential
Commodities Act,1955 does not vest power upon the respondent No.1
to impose penalty on respondent No.6. He submits that the respondent
24
No.5 vide its letter dated 28th December 2022 had forwarded the
inquiry report to respondent No.1 wherein it has been observed in para
6 and7 of the report that the respondent No.6 and three sister firms
had deposed forged and fabricated bank guarantees issued from State
Bank of India to the tune of Rs. 21.50 crores in 2021-22 and Rs. 20
crores 2022-23 for procurement of paddy which tantamount to
financial misappropriation and it is in violation of custom milling policy.
He submits that the respondent No.1 could not have lost sight of the
fact that FIR No. 09/2023 has been registered against the petitioner for
submission of forged and fabricated Bank Guarantees for procurement
of paddy and custom milling of rice wherein Sections 3 & 7 of Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 ought to have been added against the
respondent No.6. He submits that the respondent No.1 cannot dilute
the illegal activities and malpractice of the respondent No.6 for favoring
him under the pretext that respondent No.6 had deposited the rice for
the Kharif Marketing Season 2021-22 and no financial loss has been
caused to the State exchequer. He further submits that the respondent
No.1 had passed the impugned order to favour the respondent No.6
and had acted in oblivious manner without taking into consideration
that once the respondent No.6 had submitted forged and fabricated
bank guarantees for the Kharif Marketing Season 2021-22, had again
submitted false and fabricated bank guarantees for the Kharif
Marketing Season 2022-23 making mockery of law. It is submitted that
under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, the power to impose
penalty is upon the Court and not on the respondent No.1. Section
10A of the Act provides that every offence punishable under the Act
shall be cognizable. The power to impose penalty under the Act is
25
vested with the Court and it is not for the respondent No.1 to decide as
to whether he has committed the offence under the Act warranting
penal action under Section 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioners that multiple complaints have been filed by them against
the respondent No.6 and sister firms and they have been unpunished
which is in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
9. Shri Manoj Paranjape, learned counsel for the petitioners in
WPC No. 2100/2023, 2178/2023,2186/2023 and 2189/2023 is that the
order impugned is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law. From the
perusal of the documents filed by the petitioners it is clear that no show
cause notice was issued to the petitioners/firm before passing earlier
order of black listing. A prior show cause notice granting a reasonable
opportunity of being heard is an essential element of all administrative
decision making and particularly so in decision pertaining to imposition
of fine. He submits that no document has been provided prior to
recording of the statement or no copy of the inquiry report was
furnished to the petitioner firm before passing the order impugned. He
submits that the bank guarantee furnished for Kharif Marketing year
2021-22 and 2022-23 were cross verified by the District Marketing
Officer from the concerned Bank and when the Bank has approved the
same, the petitioners were permitted to lift their paddy. Even otherwise
the post dated cheques for the same amount of bank guarantees were
also furnished. He submits that the petitioners/firms did not cause any
loss to the respondents and for the year 2020-21 the rice has been
deposited and the NOC has been issued and bank guarantees
furnished by the petitioners were released. For Kharif Marketing Year
2022-23 the petitioners firms had furnished the bank guarantee of R. 5
26
crores issued by the State Bank of India and later on the closed the
account from the SBI looking to the future business prospects and
expansion of business. He submits that it is an elementary principle
that a person who is required to answer a charge must know not only
the accusation but the testimony by which the accusation is supported,
he must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the
charges and to to put such relevant questions by way of cross
examination as he desires and give chance to rebut the evidence laid
against him. He submits that the impugned order is based on the
enquiry report furnished by the enquiry committee but the same has
not been supplied along with the sow cause notice. He has relied upon
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ayaaubhkhan
Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in
(2013) 4 SCC 465 herein it has been held that a stranger cannot be
permitted to meddle in any proceedings unless he satisfies the
authority/court that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons.
He has further relief upon the order of this court in WPC No. 6450/2024
dated 02.01.2025 wherein it has been held a under:
“6. It is the trite law that ordinarily, the person
who seeks a relief under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India must have personal or
individual right in the subject-matter and the
word “ordinarily” includes, a person who has
been prejudicially affected by an act or omission
of an authority.
7. It is also the settled law that a person shall
have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is
not personally affected by the impugned order or
his fundamental rights have neither been directly
or substantially invaded nor is there any
27imminent danger of such rights being invaded or
his acquired interests have been violated
ignoring the applicable rules. (See: Vinoy Kumar
v State of U.P.and Others),(2001) 4 SCC 734.”
10. Shri Paranjape, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners in WPC Nos. 1777/2023, 1778/2023, 1792/2023,
1885/2023, 5168/2023, 261/2024 and 321/2024 only grievance is that
the State government ought to have affirmed the earlier order of
blacklisting. It is admitted position that the punishment has been
imposed by the State government, the quantum of punishment or what
punishment should have been imposed is a matter of discretion, which
has been rightly exercised by it.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 5/State submits
that the present petition have been filed challenging the order of the
State Government and the petitioners are not the aggrieved persons
and only on the ground of locus of the petitioners, the order has been
challenged. He submits that the present petitions filed by the
petitioners is bereft of merits and substance and therefore deserve to
be dismissed. It is submitted that while passing the order impugned
dated 27.03.2023, the respondent No.1/State government has only
exercised its respective powers as quasi judicial authority as per the
provisions and in compliance of the directions of this Court. He submits
that the impugned orders have been passed strictly in accordance with
law after affording due and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners and therefore does not warrant any interference. He has
placed his reliance in the matter of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs.
Collector, (2012) 4 SCC 407 and Sanker Verma Vs. State of UP,
28
reported in 2019 SCC Online All 5630.
12. So far as the submission on behalf of the petitioners in WPC No.
2100/2023, 2178/2023,2186/2023 and 2189/2023 are concerned, it is
submitted by the learned State counsel is that after conducting a
preliminary enquiry in respect of the allegations levelled against the
petitioners had passed the order dated 29.12.2022 whereby apart from
blacklisting the petitioners,the authorities had imposed further
restrictions and therefore the petitioners preferred the petition before
this Court a WPC No. 147/2023 and the grievance of the petitioner that
before inflicting the order of blacklisting, the respondents had never
issued any show cause notice nor opportunity of defence was given to
the petitioners. However, after hearing the petition, this Court vide
order dated 12.01.2023 was allowed holding that the order dated
29.12.2022 is apparently in contravention to the settled legal position.
The order has been issued without compliance of the basic principles
of natural justice and the petitioners were unheard, before inflicting the
order of blacklisting. Therefore the order is not sustainable and
deserves to be set aside/quashed. Learned State counsel submits that
the orders has been passed by the statutory authority while exercising
the adjudicatory power as well as direction of this court and the
authorities concerned have rightly exercised the jurisdiction vested in
them.
13. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 submits that the
main grievance of the petitioners is against the inaction of the
respondent No.1/State and that the State is a separate entity and that
he is a formal party.
29
14. Learned counsel for respondent No.8 submits that the role of SBI
is limited. The petitioners in collusion with the then Branch Manager of
SBI, Pendra Road, prepared fake/forged bank guarantees and
extended/confirmed in favour of CG State Cooperative Marketing
Federation as such FIR was lodged and PS Gaurela against the
proprietor of the petitioner firm and Branch Manager of SBI, Pendra
Road along with other firms. He submits that after completion of
investigation charge sheet was filed against the Branch Manager and
proprietors of petitioners firms namely Fakirchand Agrawal, Gopal
Agrawal and Ashish Agrawal under Sections 420,467,468,47 and 34
IPC and the case is fixed for framing of charges on 28.07.2025.
15. Heard learned counsels for the parties and their rival
submissions and perused the documents annexed with the petitions.
16. The petitioners, though not having a clear legal standing (locus
standi) based on their nomenclature, are contesting the order
impugned dated 27.03.2023.The order relates to bank guarantees that
are alleged to be forged and fabricated. The petitioners specifically
argued that the allegations are unfounded and the process was flawed.
The court will need to carefully interpret the meaning and scope of
Section 7(3) of the Essential Commodities Act in light of the Supreme
Court’s ruling. In the context of the Essential Commodities Act,
particularly Section 7(3), it reads as under:’
“Under Section 7 of the Act, the power to
impose penalty is upon the Court and not on the
District Collector. Section 10 A of the Act
provides that every offence punishable under
the Act shall be cognizable. Section 11 provides
30
that no Court shall take cognizance of any
offence punishable under the Act except on a
report in writing of the facts constituting such
offence made by a person who is a public
servant or any person aggrieved or any
recognized consumer association. Thus, the
power to impose penalty under the Act is vested
with the Court and it is not for the District
Collector to decide whether a person has
committed the offence under the Act warranting
penal action under Section 7. No sanction of the
District Collector is necessary for initiating
prosecution under Section 7 of the Act.”
17. The operative part of the impugned order dated 27.03.2023
passed by the respondent No.1/State is reproduced as under:
” mijksDr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij fyEukuqlkj fu.kZ; tkjh fd;k
tkrk gS&
;|fi vihykFkhZ jkbZl fey laLFkkvksa |kjk [kjhQ foi.ku o”kZ
2021&2022 esa mBk;s x;s ‘kklu dk leLr vkuqikfrd pkoy
tek dj fn;k gS] ftlls ‘kklu dks dksbZ vkfFkZd {kfr dkfjr
ugha gqbZ gS ijarq buds }kjk [kjhQ foi.ku o”kZ 2021&22
esa ,oa [kjhQ foi.ku o”kZ 2022&23 esa dwV jfpr cSad xkjaVh
tek dj /kku mBko fd;k x;k gS tks fd ,d vfu;ferrk
gS ,oa ftlds ifj.kker% jkT; ‘kklu dks dLVe fefyax dk
pkoy ifjnku uk fd, tkus ij vfkFkZd {kfr dh vo’;eHkkoh
FkhA vr,o vfoHkkxh; vkns’k i= dz- 4&21@2022@29&1
fnukad 29-12-2022 }kjk vihykFkhZ jkbZl fey laLFkkvksa dks
[kjhQ foi.ku o”kZ 2022&23 esa dkyh lwph esa ntZ fd;s tkus
laca/kh vkns’k dks f’kfFky djrs gq, vko’;d oLrq vf/kfu;e]
1955 dh /kkjk ¼7½ lgifBr /kkjk ¼3½ rFkk N-zx- dLVe fefyax
vkns’k 2016 dh dafMdk 9 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj vkosnd
jkbZl fey ij #- 5 yk[k ¼ikap yk[k #i;s½ vFkZn.M dh
‘kkfLr vf/kjksfir dh tkrh gSA lkFk gh [kjhQ foi.ku o”kZ
2022&23 esa vkosnd jkbl fey ls DO ds vuqlkj fd,
x, /kku mBko ds fo#) ifj.kkeh pkoy dks N-x- jkT;
ukxfjd vkiwfrZ fuxe@Hkkjrh; [kk| fuxe esa tek djk;s
tkus dh vuqefr iznku dh tkrh gSA”
31
18. On bare perusal of the order of the respondent No.1 Annexure
P/14, it appears that proper opportunity of hearing has been given to
the petitioners in WPC Nos. 2100/2023, 2178/2023,2186/2023 and
2189/2023 are concerned and after enquiring the matter and taking
into consideration the reply filed by the petitioners and their
statements, the order has been passed. It is not a trial alike criminal
court and only an enquiry was made by the respondent authorities
therefore in the considered opinion of this Court the order has been
passed after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
19. As far as the powers under Clause/Order 9 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 is concerned, the punishment under this
Section reads as under:
“9. Penalty: If a person contravenes any
provision of this Order or any instruction
issued under this Order or any agreement
made under this Order, he shall be liable for
punishment under Section 7 of the Act and
for penalty as mentioned in agreement and
rice mill may be black-listed.”
Bare perusal of the Clause 9 of the Essential Commodities Act,
1955 provides that if a person contravenes any provision of this order
or any instruction issued under this Order or any agreement made
under this order, the following punishment is prescribed:
ie. i) he shall be liable for punishment under
Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
ii) and for penalty as mentioned in
agreement and iii) rice mill may be
blacklisted.”
20. Therefore the word used by the legislature may be blacklisted
therefore it is discretionary power given under this Act. The respondent
32
authority had passed the order (Ex.P-14) on the following grounds:
Firstly, false and fabricated bank guarantees were
furnished by the petitioners, secondly, all the paddy
has been supplied by the petitioners and thirdly, there
was no financial loss to the State exchequer.
21. On the basis of above findings, the penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- was
imposed. However the State authority has wrongly mentioned the
nomenclature ie. under Section 7(3) of the Essential Commodities Act
because under this Section only the Court is empowered punish the
accused.
20. It is also pertinent to mention here that State has also registered
the case under Section 420/34 IPC against the petitioners in WPC
Nos. 2100/2023, 2178/2023,2186/2023 and 2189/2023 and during the
course of arguments, learned counsels for the respective parties have
admitted that the final report has been forwarded to the concerned
Magistrate and the concerned Magistrate had taken cognizance under
Section 420/34 and 467 IPC against the petitioners therefore it cannot
be said that the State has favoured the petitioners (in the above
petitions) and it is a case between the petitioner and respondent No.1
(Secretary, Department of Food, Civil supplies and Consumer
Protection) and agreement has been executed between the parties
therefore the petitioners in WPC Nos. 1777/2023, 1778/2023,
1792/2023, 1885/2023, 5168/2023, 261/2024 and 321/2024 are not the
aggrieved and thus, they have no locus standi to file the present writ
petitions challenge in the order impugned dated 27.03.2023 passed by
the State government. The State has already taken action against the
petitioners (in WPC Nos. 2100/2023, 2178/2023,2186/2023 and
2189/2023) by filing final report forwarding under Sections 420/34 and
33
467 IPC before the competent court and had imposed penalty of Rs.
5,00,000/- to the petitioner. This Court cannot interfere with the penalty
given by the concerned authority on the ground that it is erroneous if
the order impugned is otherwise proper. It is not open to the writ court
to re-appreciate reasonableness in the order impugned. This Court is
not seated in the appeal of the authority.
21. So far as the petitioners in WPC Nos. 2100/2023,
2178/2023,2186/2023 and 2189/2023 are concerned, they had been
afforded proper opportunity of hearing and contention of Shri
Paranjape is not acceptable. After giving due opportunity of hearing
and following the norms of natural justice, the order impugned dated
27.03.2023 has been passed. Hence, in the fact and circumstances of
the case, this Court is of the opinion that there is no error in the order
impugned passed by the State government and the above batch of
petitions being devoid of substance are hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Digitally signed
by SUGUNA
SUGUNA DUBEY
DUBEY Date:
2025.07.04
11:08:16 +0530