IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION : JANUARY 07, 2025 (cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16) (cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:14)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:16) (cid:1)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:14)(cid:18)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:16) (cid:17)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:24)ti(cid:16) (cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:26)(cid:16) (cid:27)(cid:14)(cid:21)(cid:28)(cid:19)(cid:18)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:29)(cid:16)

(cid:30)(cid:19)(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:14)(cid:18)(cid:22)(cid:20)(cid:12)(cid:16)(cid:24)(cid:18)(cid:26)(cid:31)(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:26)(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:21) …Petitioners Versus (cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:14)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:30)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:26)(cid:16)(cid:20)(cid:18) (cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:16) …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for Ms. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Brijesh, AAG, Punjab.

LAPITA BANERJI, J.(ORAL)

In the present writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated January 11, 2023 (Annexure P-7) and also order dated June 02, 2021 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.3-Appellate Authority under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners- MARKFED submits that MARKFED had suffered loss due to the negligence of its employees being private respondents No.4, 5 and 6. The private respondents (erring officials) of MARKFED were charge-sheeted. Not only the lower quantity of rice was due to the weight loss in quantity of paddy given for milling but also due to yield that was received from the said quantity of paddy. It is fairly submitted that at present, the petitioners are not challenging the yield that was received from the paddy since it has now been established that due to the variety of paddy being P.A.U.-201, the yield was substantially less but he urged that the quantity of paddy that was given for milling fell short by 1551.36 quintals. Therefore, the rice that should have been produced from 1551.36 quintals would have been around 904.26 quintals (being 67% of the paddy mill) and that shortfall was not considered by the authorities below.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and also perusing the material on record, this Court is of the view that there are seriously disputed questions of facts in the present case. The private respondents had urged before the Authorities below that there was no weight measurement done at the time of supply of paddy to the private respondents. Moreover, there was loss of moisture content due to the long delay of the paddy after procurement. Therefore, any shortage with regard to the weight of the paddy given for milling was due to the aforesaid factors and neither due to the negligence of the officials concerned nor due to any embezzlement by them.

4. It is trite law that a writ Court should not ordinarily delve into disputed questions of facts. In this regard a beneficial reference may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in “Shubhas Jain Vs. Rajeshwari Shivam and others” (2021) 20 Supreme Court Cases 454. Relevant extract thereof is reproduced herein below.

“xxx

25. It is well settled that the High Court exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not adjudicate hotly disputed questions of facts. It is not for the High Court to make a comparative assessment of conflicting technical reports and decide which one is a acceptable.

xxx”

5. Since seriously disputed questions of facts have been raised in the writ petition and there is no corroborated evidence to show that the private respondents admitted to the loss of paddy being given for milling, this Court is not willing to entertain the writ petition. Moreover, this Court does n