1 2025:CGHC:3799 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 374 of 2025 1 Dadi Palishan Paddy Processing Mill Through Its Proprietor Mamta Gupta Wife Of Shri Raj Kumar Gupta Aged About 60 Years, Address Village Barapali Tehsil Baramkela, Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited Through Its General Manager, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 General Manager Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, 6th Floor, Tower C, Commercial Complex, Cbd Sector - 21, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing, Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 6 Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2 7 Managing Director State Civil Supplies, Corporation Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 8 Punjab National Bank Branch Through Its Branch Manager, Jindal Road Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Aniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) / State : Shri Satish Gupta, G.A. For Respondents No. 2 to 5 : Shri Ashish Surana, Advocate For Respondent No. 8: Shri Sudhanshu Upadhyay on behalf of Shri Sharad Mishra, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 22/01/2025 Heard. 1. By the present writ petition the petitioner is seeking quashment of blacklisting order of the petitioner and seeking a direction to respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in upcoming rice milling operation. 2. Learned State counsel on instructions submits that, as far as, the black listing is concerned, there is no black listing order passed against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 5 submits that, as far as, encashment of bank guarantee is concerned the bank guarantee has been enchashed as the petitioner failed to deposit the proceeds of rice as per the custom milling agreement for the year 2019-20 to 2021-22. He further submits that as far as information available to the respondents the rice mills of the petitioner has been found closed, as the notice of recovery and information about the bank guarantee has been returned back from the rice mill of the petitioner situated at Barpali, Post Sariya, Sarangadh-Bilaigadh 3 with a report that the mill has already been closed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents and pleadings. 5. Looking to the submissions made by the learned State counsel and respondents No. 2 to 5, as there is no black listing order existing against the petitioner, therefore, the relief sought against black listing has become redundant. As far as the enchashment of bank guarantee is concerned the petitioner is free to challenge the same, in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti