The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed two public interest litigations alleging large-scale financial irregularities in the State’s paddy procurement process for the 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 marketing years, holding that the petitions had become infructuous following the introduction and enforcement of a new Procurement Policy. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal passed the common order on September 3, 2026.
The petitions raised allegations of financial corruption and irregularities in the procurement of paddy in Chhattisgarh. The petitioners alleged manipulation of procurement records and fictitious adjustments in paddy stocks, resulting in substantial losses to the State exchequer.
According to the petition, the alleged irregularities concerned 3,067 metric tonnes of paddy valued at approximately ₹5.38 crore during 2018-19, 43,656 metric tonnes valued at ₹79.54 crore during 2019-20, and 1,76,416 metric tonnes valued at ₹330.78 crore during 2020-21. The petitioners had sought a high-level independent inquiry, fixation of personal liability on those responsible, recovery of losses and initiation of criminal proceedings against persons found responsible.
Also Read Unauthorized Temple on Nursery Land Cannot Continue; Delhi HC Dismisses Plea for Regularisation
During the hearing, counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the proceedings had become academic as the State Government had subsequently introduced a new Procurement Policy governing paddy procurement for the subsequent years. It was argued that, in view of the change in policy, the reliefs sought in the petitions no longer required adjudication. The State and other respondents did not dispute this submission.
The High Court accepted the submission, observing that the subsequent introduction and enforcement of the new Procurement Policy meant that the grievance raised in the petitions no longer survived for consideration. The Bench held that the reliefs sought had been rendered academic and that no effective or efficacious relief could now be granted in the proceedings.
Consequently, the Bench dismissed both PILs as having become infructuous.
