Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 85 (ORI)

Chaitaram Banjara v. State of Orissa

2007-02-07

A.S.NAIDU

body2007
ORDER 07.2.2007 — The facts and points of law involved in both the Writ Petitions being one and the same, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same were taken up together and are heard. 2. The dispute in both the Writ Petitions is with regard to Paddy Procurement Policy for the Kharif Marketing Season 2006-2007 as well as milling of paddy through approved Millers. The petitioners in both the cases mainly rely upon the letter issued by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kalahandi, dtd.14.9.2006 (Annexure-1 to W.P.(C) No.15998/2006) asking/advis¬ing all the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies (for short ‘PACS’) to procure paddy from the loanee farmers and get the same milled through approved Millers. The letter states that societies should convene their respective meetings of Governing Body each and select a Miller and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. 3. Admittedly, the petitioners in both the cases are PACS. They have advanced huge money to different farmers from out of the funds made available to them by the Central Cooperative Bank. It is stated that some of the Millers have deposited huge money in the said Bank, and out of the same funds were made available to the PACS for advancing loans to farmers. It is submitted that in consonance with the letter Annexure-1 to W.P.(C) No.15998/2006, general body meetings of the respective Societies were convened and they selected the specific Millers and entered into agreements with the said Miller procuring the paddy from the farmers and milling the same. 4. The dispute however arose when the Collector, Nuapada refused to grant Enforcement Certificate for lifting milled rice mainly on the ground that the Millers with whom the individual PACS had entered into agreement were not authorized by him. The petitioners further rely upon a letter issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Orissa, Bhubaneswar dtd. 26.12.2006 (Annexure-9 to W.P.(C) No.210/2007) wherein it has been clearly stated that PACS of Nuapada District were facing funds crisis due to poor recovery of loans from the members and in order to streamline the recovery drive, they had been persuaded to partic¬ipate in the procurement operation under Linking Credit with Marketing Scheme. It further reveals that in consonance with the direction issued, the PACS had entered into agreement with di¬fferent Millers. It further reveals that in consonance with the direction issued, the PACS had entered into agreement with di¬fferent Millers. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Orissa requested the Collector, Nuapada to issue Enforcement Certificate in favour of the PACS of Nuapada District who had not executed agreement as per the orders of the DRCS, but then entered into agreements according to the decision of individual Board of Management, in the larger interest of the farming community. The grievance of the petitioners is that though this letter was issued on 26.12.2006 no action has been taken by the Collector till date, thereby causing immense hardship to the petitioners. 5. All the submissions are strongly repudiated by the learned counsel for the State. Relying upon different documents as annexed to the counter affidavit, like the Food Procure Policy for the Kharif Marketing Season 2006-2007 issued by the Govern¬ment of Orissa Food Supplies and Consumer Welfare Department dtd. 28.9.2006 as well as the Levy Control Order it is forcefully submitted that in order to avoid pilferage and confirming proper procurement of paddy and rice, the Collector had been entrusted with the responsibility for monitoring procurement of rice and also ensuring payment of minimum support price to farmers and prevent recycling of subsidized rice. In consonance with the said circular as well as the Schemes the Collector after discussing with the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies had tagged different PACS to different Millers with a direction that they should enter into an agreement with particular Miller, selected by the Collector to maintain effective control. It is stated that the Millers those have violated such directions are not entitled to any Enforcement Certificate. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused different materials available. Fact remains, a letter was issued by the DRCS on 14.9.2006 directing or advising the PACS to go ahead with procurement of rice like previous years and to take steps about the milling after convening general body meeting and selecting a Miller. It is submitted that in con¬sonance with the said letter the petitioners had proceeded and entered into an agreement with different Millers and as such it is not possible for them to cancel the agreement and engage other Millers as directed by the Collector at a much later date. It is submitted that in con¬sonance with the said letter the petitioners had proceeded and entered into an agreement with different Millers and as such it is not possible for them to cancel the agreement and engage other Millers as directed by the Collector at a much later date. After examination of documents annexed this Court finds that so far as the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.15998/2006, i.e. Khariar Road Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies, is concerned its Governing Body had entered into an agreement with M/s. Samaleswari Rice Industries. The Collector, as would be evident from the documents filed, tagged the said PACS with Samaleswari Rice Industries. Thus, there is no discrepancy bet¬ween the direction of the Collector as well selection of Millers by the Governing Body. As such this Court finds no reason as to why Enforcement Certificate shall not be issued to the petition¬ers' society. It is therefore directed that necessary Enforcement Certificate be issued in favour of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.15998 of 2006, expeditiously to avoid loss. 7. There are five petitioners in W.P.(C) No.210/2007. Out of them Beltukri, PACS, petitioner No.1, has been assigned to Mahavir Rice Mill by the DRCS. Its Governing Body had also chosen the said rice mill. So far as petitioners 4 and 5, i.e., Kande¬tara S.C.S. and Sarbang S.C.S. are concerned, they have been assigned Mahavir Rice Mill by the DRCS. The Governing Body has also entered into agreements with the said Millers. Thus, this Court finds no difficulty in issuing the Enforcement Certificate so far as the aforesaid three petitioners are concerned. 8. The only difficulty that arises is with regard to Bhella S.C.S. as well as Tarbod S.C.S. It appears that the Gov¬erning Body of Bhella S.C.S. has selected Mahavir Rice Mill and has entered into an agreement with it, but then the said Society has been assigned Jayadurga Rice Mill by the DRCS. Similarly, petitioner No.3, Tarbod S.C.S. has selected Mahavir Rice Mill, but then it has been tagged to Ananda Rice Mill by the DRCS. Thus, there is discrepancy between the Millers chosen by differ¬ent Societies and the Millers assigned by the DRCS. Similarly, petitioner No.3, Tarbod S.C.S. has selected Mahavir Rice Mill, but then it has been tagged to Ananda Rice Mill by the DRCS. Thus, there is discrepancy between the Millers chosen by differ¬ent Societies and the Millers assigned by the DRCS. To avoid further delay in the matter both petitioners 2 and 3 are directed to file suitable application before the Collector for permitting them to engage the Millers with whom they have entered agreement which shall be dealt with by the Collector in consonance with the letter dtd. 26.12.2006 issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. This Court further feels that in view of the confusion created by issuance of the letter, Annexure-1, dtd.14,9.2006 by the DRCS, the Collector shall do well to take a liberal view for this year, of course the Collector shall make suitable provision for protecting the procurement of rice and also shall ensure minimum support price to farmers in consonance with the Food Procurement Policy. With the aforesaid observation, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. This order be communicated at the cost of the petitioners. A free copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the State. Petition disposed of.