ORDER

Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member.—I propose to dispose of all the above mentioned Revision Petitions vide this order since the facts and question of law involved in them are the same.

1. Facts are being taken from Revision Petition No.944 of 2020.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainants filed the Complaint before the District Forum against the Petitioner and the Respondents No.11 to 16 (Opposite Parties No.2 to 7) and only the Petitioner and the Respondents No.15 and 16, namely, Regional Manager and the Managing Director of Jute Corporation of India Limited, had filed their written statements. Complainants, who were the farmers of seasonal crops, grew jute and stored their produce at Bhartiya Gramin Bhandar, Bhetaguri and by pledging the said produce took a loan of 60% of the value of the jute. The produce was stored with a view to sell it to the Jute Corporation of India, i.e., the Petitioner at a profitable price. It was the contention of the farmers that the jute price was fixed at Rs.3,800/- to 4,200/- per quintal as was clear from the memo no.RO/C0