State & Centre Must Formulate Policy on Paddy Driage Loss; Recovery from Societies Unjust if Delay Is by Agencies: Chhattisgarh High Court - 2025-08-11

Chhattisgarh HC: State Cannot Hold Cooperative Societies Liable for Paddy Driage Loss Caused by Its Own Delay in Lifting

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh: The High Court of Chhattisgarh, in a significant ruling, has directed the Union and State governments to formulate a policy to address the loss in paddy quantity due to driage, emphasizing that cooperative societies cannot be penalized for delays caused by government agencies. Justice Arvind Kumar Verma stated that the responsibility to ensure timely action and policy compliance rests with the State, especially in matters of public interest.

The court was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by several Adim Jati Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit (Cooperative Societies) against the Union of India, the State of Chhattisgarh, and its agencies, including the Chhattisgarh State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited (MARKFED).

Background of the Case

The petitioners, cooperative societies tasked with procuring paddy from farmers under a government scheme, argued that the respondent authorities failed to lift the procured paddy in a timely manner. This delay, they contended, led to the paddy drying out in their procurement centers, resulting in a significant loss of weight and quantity (driage).

Despite the loss being a direct consequence of the authorities' inaction, the societies and their managers were being threatened with recovery proceedings and other punitive measures for the shortfall.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioners' Stance: Mr. Raza Ali, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the authorities' actions were arbitrary and violated the principles of natural justice. He asserted that the societies had followed all government guidelines, but the State agencies defaulted on their responsibility to lift the stock. The petitioners highlighted that while the paddy languished, its quality and quantity deteriorated due to climatic factors beyond their control, yet they were being unfairly held accountable for the resulting losses.

Respondents' Position: The State government's counsel acknowledged the situation but suggested the petitioners might be exaggerating the impact of natural driage. They assured the court that a decision on the matter was forthcoming.

Counsel for MARKFED, the primary lifting agency, claimed that lifting operations were ongoing and that any decision regarding the paddy deficit would be made by the State and Central governments. They expressed no objection to a resolution similar to that in a previous case, Chitrasen Rath Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others .

Court's Analysis and Precedents

Justice Arvind Kumar Verma observed that since the paddy was collected under a government policy, it was the "duty of the State to collect the said paddy." The court noted that the repeated extension of the lifting deadline by the State itself was an admission of the delay.

The judgment underscored the core issue: the absence of a defined policy for driage allowance for the current season. The court reasoned that since various factors, including weather conditions, contributed to the delay and subsequent loss, it is unavoidable that the paddy quantity would be affected.

The Court cited a relevant judgment from the Punjab and Haryana High Court in M/s Jagdamba Rice Mill and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others (CWP No.- 20840/2021) . In that case, the High Court had quashed recovery proceedings against millers for driage loss, holding that:

“If there is any mis-communication or mis-understanding between the State Government and Central Government, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. The State has no authority to initiate recovery proceedings without associating affected parties.”

Drawing on this principle, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that the dispute over driage reimbursement is an inter-governmental matter and the liability cannot be unfairly passed on to the cooperative societies.

Final Decision and Implications

Finding merit in the petitioners' grievances, the High Court disposed of the petitions with a clear directive. It ordered the petitioners to submit a formal representation to the Central and State governments within two weeks.

The Court further directed the concerned authorities to:

"...consider and decide the said representations while passing a reasoned order within a further period of 90 days in accordance with law."

This ruling provides significant relief to cooperative societies across the state, establishing that they cannot be made scapegoats for systemic delays in the paddy procurement and lifting process. It firmly places the onus on the government to create a fair and predictable policy for unavoidable agricultural losses like driage.