1 2025:CGHC:31508 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCC No. 664 of 2025 Vijay Kumar Sinha (Proprietor -M/s Laxmi Rice Industries), S/o. Late Jagdish Ram Sinha Aged About 41 Years (Proprietor - M/s. Laxmi Rice Industries), R/o. Purana Mangal Bazar, Ward No. 14, District - Gariyaband (C.G.) Firm's Address - Sadbholi Road, Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through - Deputy Secretary, Ministry Of Consumer Affairs, Food And Public Distribution Department, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Marketing Federation Maryadit, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.). 4 - C.G. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband (C.G.). 5 - Collector (Food Department) Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband (C.G.). 6 - District Marketing Officer Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband (C.G.). 7 - Food Corporation Of India (Fci) Regional Office- Mova, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant : Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate. For the UIO : Mr. RS Patel, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Gupta, GA For the FCI : Mr. RS Patel, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 09.07.2025 1. The Applicant has filed this application (MCC) with following prayer: “that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this application and protect the applicant from impugned Recovery order dated 06.06.2025 issued by respondent no.6 (from forfeiting/ confiscation of the bank guarantee/ FDR and Post Dated Cheques deposited as security with the bank for this Kharif year 2023-24 or by any other mode or manner), in the interest of Justice.” 2. Facts projected by the applicant in the present application are that the original writ petition (WPC No.3094/2025) was filed by the petitioner/applicant herein challenging the impugned recovery order dated 06.06.2025 passed by respondent No.6, which has been received to the petitioner/applicant on 12.06.2025, whereby it was ordered to the petitioner to deposit (One Crore Seventy Nine Lakhs) Rs.1,79,00,000/- within 15 days otherwise the said recovery amount will be recovered from the Bank Guarantee/FDR deposited by the petitioner in lieu of Custom Milling of paddy in the Kharif Marketing Year 2023-24, by non- accepting the balance of 483.09 Quintals (483.09 M.T.) (Common + Grade A) of CMR (Custom Milled Rice) of 2023-24, without considering the recommendation of respondent No.5 (Collector) sent to respondent no.2, without giving any notice and affording the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is completely against the principle of natural justice and bad in the eyes of law. The above writ petition was listed for 3 hearing on 20.06.2025 and the matter was argued on stay of the impugned recovery order dated 06.06.2025 and for directing the concerned respondents to take CMR of 483.09 Quintals (483.09 Μ.T.), however, when the order was uploaded, the Court has not touch the point of impugned Recovery Order dated 06.06.2025 and simply passed the order on the basis of earlier order passed by this Court, due to which, the respondents are in process of doing recovery of the Bank Guarantee/FDR deposited by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant needs modification in the order dated 20.06.2025 passed by this Court in WPC No.3094/2025 with regard to impugned order dated 06.06.2025 issued by respondent no.6 and protect the applicant for the said arbitrary recovery order in violation of principle of natural justice. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that application (MCC) files for only modification of any typographical error occurred in the order and not for reviving the order passed by this Court. If the applicant wants any modification in the merits of the order, he shall file the review petition or he can also challenge the order of this Court before the Division Bench of this Court. Learned Counsel further contended that in other similar case, i.e, order dated 03.07.2025 passed WPC No.3240/2025, this Court has already considered that petitioner may take recourse to the arbitration clause as provided in the agreement. It has been further held that when contractual remedy by way of arbitration is available and the dispute pertains to interpretation of policy or contract terms, parties must avail such remedy rather than invoking the writ jurisdiction. 4 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Perusal of order dated 20.06.2025 passed in WPC No.3094/2025 shows that while passing the said order, this Court has considered all the aspect of the case and submissions of counsel for the parties, therefore, there is no need to interfere in the order. 7. Considering the above facts of the case, submissions of counsel for the parties, the fact that this MCC has been filed by the applicant for reviving the order dated 20.06.2025, however, application (MCC) files for only modification of any typographical error occurred in the order, therefore, MCC is not maintainable. 8. Accordingly, MCC is hereby dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-