ORDER : Heard. 1. The petitioners herein who are the farmers have filed the petition on the ground that from 9/02/2020 to 12/02/2020 they have deposited the paddy grains with the Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Gadhadih for sale of the paddy. Because of the computer malfunction the paddy so delivered could not be entered in the records as such manual receipts were issued which affirms the fact that the petitioners have deposited the paddy which are collectively filed as Annexure P-1. It is submitted that the Tehsildar on 16/02/2020 made an inspection and found that the paddy which was kept in the premises was substandard and on 17/02/2020 inspected the record and it was found that no entry have been made in the computer or other Register of receipt but entry was made in a separate register. It is further contended that on the basis of such report of the Tehsildar Annexure P-2 on 18/02/2020 directions were issued that the paddy of the petitioners should not be purchased. It is further contended that the petitioners are not concerned as to the internal affairs of the society but the petitioners are entitled to get the amount for their paddy which the society has already accepted and the State is liable to make good the same irrespective of the fact the individual liability which may accrue to the society. Learned counsel further submits that the reply of the State would show that the procedure which has been laid down to declare the paddy to be substandard has not been followed. He would further submit that without going into that fact that the paddy delivered by the petitioners were refused to be purchased for the reason that it has not been entered in the computer, the petitioners cannot be deprived of their lawful right. It is further stated the reason which has been assigned by the Collector after direction was issued by this court in first round of litigation cannot be sustained in favour of the respondent as the respondent have changed the stand in the reply and tried to improve their act and justify the actions. It is therefore contended that the respondent be directed to pay the price of the paddy in accordance with the Government Policy and to set aside the order of the Collector dated 23/07/2020 (Annexure P-7). 2. It is therefore contended that the respondent be directed to pay the price of the paddy in accordance with the Government Policy and to set aside the order of the Collector dated 23/07/2020 (Annexure P-7). 2. Learned State counsel would submit that the report of the Tehsildar Annexure P-2 has not been set aside till date which contains the fact that the paddy which was found at the premises was substandard. It is further submitted that the stock of the paddy which was found at the premises which the petitioners claim to have handed over do not find place in the record as such the FIR was lodged against the society members. It is stated since the manipulation was tried to be done which is manifested by the report of the Tehsildar dated 18/02/2020 the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The petitioners claims that they are the farmers, they brought the paddy to the society and for the reason that the computer was not working on the particular date, the paddy though was procured by the society but the entry could not be made in the computer. The petitioners have relied upon the physical receipts for the paddy and the delivery receipts are filed as Annexure P-1 collectively. As per the petitioners the paddy deposited by the petitioners was to the extent of 6517 bags and a total quantity 2606.80 quintals. As per the reply of the State, the Tehsildar on inspection found a vehicle was standing out side the paddy procurement centre on 16/02/2020 and to the query it was said paddy which was being unloaded from the vehicle bearing CG 04 J.B. 4910 was sent back by a rice mill named Baba Ramdev Rice Mill since it was found to be substandard. This also finds place in the report of the Tehsildar dated 18/02/2020 Annexure P-2. As per reply on 17/02/2020 on the next date on an inspection made it was found that 6517 bags of the paddy which was kept in the premises was not entered in the computer and it was for a period of 9/02/2020 to 11/02/2020. The reply and report suggest that entry of procurement of paddy was found in a separate register and on the weightment slip and the register according to the Tehsildar the signature were found to be different. The reply and report suggest that entry of procurement of paddy was found in a separate register and on the weightment slip and the register according to the Tehsildar the signature were found to be different. The report further purports that the paddy which was stored in the centre were found to be substandard and eventually the FIR was lodged and direction was also issued not to purchase the paddy. 5. On an earlier occasion while dispute aggravated the petitioners herein approached this Court. This Court in WPC No.1102/2020 on 8/06/2020 directed as under:- “6. Given the said nature of dispute that the petitioners have raised, this court is of the opinion that it would not be proper for this court to conduct any sort of enquiry or investigation in respect of the nature of dispute. Since the matter is already placed before the Collector, Bemetara by way of representation, this court thinks it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the Collector, Bemetara to take a decision on the representation of the petitioners at the earliest particularly keeping in mind the fast approaching Monsoon season ensuring that decision is taken before the Moonsoon season comes.” 6. The Collector thereafter has passed the order on 23/07/2020 Annexure P-7 which is under challenge. 7. Reading of the reply of the State would show that there is no plausible answer is found with respect to the receipt which were issued to the petitioners vide Annexure P-1. The receipts are in possession of petitioners which purports the delivery of paddy to the centre. The report of the Tehsildar dated 18/02/2020 Annexure P-2 speaks about the 6517 bags of paddy were found in the premises but were not entered in the register and in the weightment slip (taul parchi) and the receipt register of the paddy the signature were found to be different. The primary rejection to accept the paddy of the petitioners was on the ground that the entry of delivery of paddy was not found in the software or in the register but it was recorded in a fresh panchnama register which shows the entry from 9/02/2020. Whereas in the reply and the order of the Collector dated 23/07/2020 Annexure P-7 the primary rejection to give the benefit to the petitioners was on the ground that the paddy was substandard. Whereas in the reply and the order of the Collector dated 23/07/2020 Annexure P-7 the primary rejection to give the benefit to the petitioners was on the ground that the paddy was substandard. The report of the Tehsildar dated 18/02/2020 which is the basis is also ambiguous to the fact whether the paddy which was procured by Annexure P-1 by the Samiti was substandard or not. It is a omnibus report that the paddy which was found in the premises was substandard. 8. Certainly in order to declare paddy substandard the procedure has not been followed and the direction are issued by Annexure P-6. The analysis procedure as prescribed, for sake of brevity, the relevant part of analysis procedure is reproduced hereunder:- “ANALYSIS PROCEDURE :- Take 5 grams of rice (sound head rice and brokens) in a petri dish (80x70 mm). Dip the grains in about 20 ml. of Methylene Blue solution (0.05% by weight in distilled water) and allow to stand for about one minute. Decant the Methylene Blue solution. Give a swirl wash with about 20 ml. of dilute hydrochloric acid (5% solution by volume in distilled water). Give a swirl wash with water and pour about 20 ml. of Metanil Yellow solution (0.05% by weight in distilled water) on the blue stained grains and allow to stand for about one minute. Decant the effluent and wash with fresh water twice. Keep the stained grains under fresh and count the dehusked grains. Count the total number of grains in 5 grams of sample under analysis. Three brokens are counted as one whole grain. CALCULATIONS: Percentage of Dehusked grains = N x 100 W Where N= Number of dehusked grains in 5 grams of sample W= Total grains in 5 grams of sample. 2. The Method of sampling is to be followed as given in Bureau of Indian Standard “Method of sampling of Cereals and Pulses” No IS: 14818-2000 as amended from time to time. 3. Brokens less than 1/8th of the size of full kernels will be treated as organic foreign matter. For determination of the size of the brokens average length of the principal class of rice should be taken into account. 4. Inorganic foreign matter shall not exceed 0.25% in any lot, if it is more, the stocks should be cleaned and brought within the limit. For determination of the size of the brokens average length of the principal class of rice should be taken into account. 4. Inorganic foreign matter shall not exceed 0.25% in any lot, if it is more, the stocks should be cleaned and brought within the limit. Kernels or pieces of kernels having mud sticking on surface of rice, shall be treated as Inorganic foreign matter. 5. In case of rice prepared by pressure parboiling technique, it will be ensured that correct process of parboiling is adopted i.e. pressure applied, the time for which pressure is applied, proper gelatinisation, aeration and drying before milling are adequate so that the colour and cooking time of parboiled rice are good and free from encrustation of the grains.” 9. The society was working as an agent on behalf of the State to procure the paddy and this fact is not been rebutted that because of the malfunction of the computer the paddy was manually procured and receipts were issued. It is not a case where the paddy were refused for the reason that it was substandard. If the society members have not followed certain procedure before accepting the paddy, then in such case, the petitioners who are the farmers who are in hold of the receipts of handing over the paddy cannot be made scapegoat. Even if the society members have committed any fraud or any misappropriation with the lying stock in Samity it is for the respective prosecution agency to take care of it. The petitioners cannot be deprived of their claim on general remark that paddy found in premises was substandard and no entry was found in computer. There has to be clear and distinct finding that paddy brought by petitioners were bad and the strong and cogent reason should exists to suppress the manual delivery receipts. Since the Samity member was found to have committed illegal act an FIR has been lodged by the Tehsildar against the society members by Annexure P-2. Primary reading of the reply and the report of the Tehsildar would show that the State has taken a different stand before this Court from the previous stand and tried to improve their act. 10. Primary reading of the reply and the report of the Tehsildar would show that the State has taken a different stand before this Court from the previous stand and tried to improve their act. 10. Therefore, the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in (2011) 5 SCC 435 in between Joint Action Committee of Airlines Pilot Association v. Director General of Civil Aviation and other wherein the judgement in case of R.N. Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir, AIR 1993 SC 352 has been reiterated while explaining the doctrine of election it is held that there can't be inconsistent stand adopted by State. The relevant part is reproduced hereunder:- “11. In R.N. Gosain v. Yashpal Dhir, AIR 1993 SC 352 , this Court observed as under:-"Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. This principle is based on the doctrine of election which postulates that no party can accept and reject the same instrument and that "a person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage, to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then turn round and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage." 12. The doctrine of election is based on the rule of estoppel - the principle that one cannot approbate and reprobate inheres in it. The doctrine of estoppel by election is one of the species of estoppels in pais (or equitable estoppel), which is a rule in equity. By that law, a person may be precluded by his actions or conduct or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he otherwise would have had. Taking inconsistent pleas by a party makes its conduct far from satisfactory. Further, the parties should not blow hot and cold by taking inconsistent stands and prolong proceedings unnecessarily. (Vide: Babu Ram @ Durga Prasad v. Indra Pal Singh (D) by L.Rs., (1998) 6 SCC 358 ; P.R. Deshpandey v. Maruti Balaram Haibatti, (1998) 6 SCC 507 ; and Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Golden Chariot Airport & Anr., (2010) 10 SCC 422 ).” 11. (Vide: Babu Ram @ Durga Prasad v. Indra Pal Singh (D) by L.Rs., (1998) 6 SCC 358 ; P.R. Deshpandey v. Maruti Balaram Haibatti, (1998) 6 SCC 507 ; and Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Golden Chariot Airport & Anr., (2010) 10 SCC 422 ).” 11. It is also settled proposition which has been laid down in case of Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Golden Chariot Airport & Anr., reported in (2010) 10 SCC 422 that a litigant cannot be permitted to assume inconsistent position in Court, to play fast and loose, to blow hot and cold. The Supreme Court in para 50 of the judgment has laid down as under:- “50. Justice Ashutosh Mookerjee speaking for the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Dwijendra Narain Roy vs. Joges Chandra De, (AIR 1924 Cal 600), held that it is an elementary rule that a party litigant cannot be permitted to assume inconsistent positions in Court, to play fast and loose, to blow hot and cold, to approbate and reprobate to the detriment of his opponent.” 12. Taking the facts together and the order of the Collector passed on 23/07/2020 would show that inconsistent plea has been taken by the State that the paddy being substandard it was not accepted. The plea being inconsistent cannot be allowed to sustain. There is nothing on record to show or any document has been produced to show that the procedure to declare that the paddy is substandard the methodology were adopted. Further more omnibus statement is made that paddy which was lying at procurement centre was substandard. Whether substandard paddy was of 6517 bags or not is ambiguous. Following these facts the law laid down in AIR 1968 SC 1413 in between Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mahomed Haji Latif & Ors. would be applicable. It is held in the dictum that even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party the Court may draw an adverse inference if he withholds important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts of the issue. Therefore, the rejection of the paddy of the petitioners on the ground that it was substandard cannot be on the oral or report of the Tehsildar which was required to follow certain procedure. Therefore, the rejection of the paddy of the petitioners on the ground that it was substandard cannot be on the oral or report of the Tehsildar which was required to follow certain procedure. As it is settled principle of law that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any Statute the act must be done in that manner. Therefore, while determining the quality of paddy whether it is substandard or not no procedure since was adopted and inconsistent plea is taken before this Court. Therefore plea cannot be given a preference over the paddy delivery receipts Annexure P-1 which shows that the paddy was delivered to the respondent which are delivery challan which remains unrebutted before this Court. 13. Under the circumstances, it is directed that irrespective of the criminal liability as against the FIR lodged by the respondent against the society members, which is subject to the outcome of proof before the criminal court, the petitioners who are the farmers cannot be deprived of their right as the right has accrued on the basis of Annexure P-1. Accordingly, it is ordered that on production of the deposit slip/taul parchi the respondent/State would be bound to give the respective price to the farmers in accordance to their entitlement. It is therefore ordered that the respondent shall pay the respective amount to the petitioners in accordance with the policy which was existing in 2020 as per their entitlement to the proportion of their delivery of paddy. The aforesaid exercise be carried and concluded within a further period of three months. 14. With such observation, the petition stands allowed.