1 2025:CGHC:60547-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3133 of 2025 1 - M/s Datar Rice Industries Unit Ii Jhakhar Para, Khutgaon, Deobhog Gariyaband, Dist. Gariyaband C.G. Through Its Proprietor Mr. Ashif Memon, Aged About 46 Years, S/o Mr. Ayyb Memon, Resident Of Jhakhar Para, Deobhog, Dist. Gariyaband C.G. 2 - Ashif Memon S/o Mr. Ayyb Memon Aged About 46 Years Resident Of Jhakhar Para, Deobhog, Dist. Gariyaband C.G. --- Petitioners Versus 1 - The Union Of India Through 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, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Market Federation Maryaditi Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 4 - Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband (C.G.). 5 - Collector (Food Department), Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband (C.G.). ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.12.12 16:25:16 +0530 2 6 - District Marketing Officer, Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Maryadit, Gariyaband, Dist. Gariyaband (C.G.). 7 - Food Corporation Of India Through Its General/ Regional Manager Mowa, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). --- Respondents WPC No. 3137 of 2025 1 - M/s Datar Rice Industries Jhakar Para Gariyaband, Distt. Gariyaband Chhattisgarh Through Its Proprietor Mr. Ashif Memon, Aged About 46 Years, S/o Mr. Ayyb Memon, R/o Jhakhar Para, Deobhog, Dist. Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 2 - Ashif Memon S/o Mr. Ayyb Memon Aged About 46 Years R/o Jhakhar Para, Deobhog, Dist. Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ---Petitioners Versus 1 - Union Of India Through - 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, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar Dist - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Marketing Federation Maryadit Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Gariyaband, Dist - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 5 - Collector (Food Department) Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 6 - District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Maryadit, Gariyaband, District - Gariyaband Chhattisgarh 3 7 - Food Corporation Of India Through Its General/ Regional Manager Mowa, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent-UOI : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Central Government Counsel For Respondent- MarkFed : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Advocate For Respondent-FCI : Mr. Prakhar Dashore, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 12.12 .2025 1. Heard Mr. Raza Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for State, Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the Union of India, Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the Chhattisgarh State Marketing Federation and Mr. Prakhar Dashore, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. R.S. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the Food Corporation of India. 2. Since both the petitions involve common questions of fact arising out of identical circumstances and the challenge in each petition 4 pertains to the same set of actions on the part of the respondents, this Court considers it appropriate to hear them together. Accordingly, both the writ petitions were clubbed, taken up for analogous hearing, and are being disposed of by this common order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 3. In WPC No.3133/2025, the petitioners have prayed for following relief(s) :- “A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue commanding and directing the respondent authorities to produce before this Hon'ble Court all the relevant records pertaining to the case of the petitioners. B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue quashing the letter dated 06.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent no. 6 and further pleased to issue direction to the respondents to permit the petitioners to deposit the remaining the rice and further direct to provide the stake/lots to the petitioners as per the quantity of rice in the online portal. C. A writ and/or an appropriate writ do directing the respondents to provide monetary compensation to the petitioners. D. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. E. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.” 5 4. In WPC No.3137/2025, the petitioners have prayed for following relief(s) :- “A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue commanding and directing the respondent authorities to produce before this Hon'ble Court all the relevant records pertaining to the case of the petitioners. B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue quashing the letter dated 06.06.2025 issued by the respondent no. 6 and further pleased to issue direction to the respondents to permit the petitioners to deposit the remaining the rice and further direct to provide the stake/lots to the petitioners as per the quantity of rice in the online portal. C. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do directing the respondents to provide monetary compensation to the petitioners. D. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 5. Mr. Raza Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned letter dated 06.06.2025 and restraining the petitioners from depositing the remaining quantity of CMR rice is wholly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the contractual terms as well as the binding directions issued by this Court in WPC No. 6384/2024. It is contended that 6 pursuant to the order dated 04.02.2025, a fresh joint physical verification was conducted on 06.02.2025, wherein no shortage whatsoever was found and it was categorically recorded that the petitioners had sufficient stock of paddy to deliver the remaining CMR rice. In spite of such clear findings, the respondents illegally withheld the opening of the petitioners online portal and did not allot lots/stakes for depositing rice under the FCI head, thereby frustrating the petitioners ability to comply with the agreement. 6. Mr. Ali further submitted that the petitioners have already deposited more than 80% of the total CMR rice and are fully ready and willing to deposit the balance 151.48 MT. However, the respondents, without any justifiable cause, have refused to accept the remaining rice even though the period for deposition stands extended till 30.06.2025. The respondents have, in identical matters, accepted rice from other millers even after the expiry of the stipulated period, but have discriminated against the petitioners in complete violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is argued that the respondents’ conduct amounts not only to violation of the contractual obligations but also to clear disobedience of the judgment of this Court. The issuance of the impugned notice seeking recovery of monetary value in place of rice, when the petitioners are ready with the stock and the verification report shows no shortage, is wholly unsustainable. The petitioners submit that the refusal to open the online portal is deliberate and mala fide, particularly because FCI (respondent 7 no. 7) itself lacks storage space and, to conceal its own administrative failure, has blocked the petitioners from depositing the rice. 7. Mr. Ali further contends that in the entire agreement, there is no stipulation that the rice must be taken only from the same bags earlier verified, nor is there any clause that non-countability of paddy bags would be treated as shortage. Once the fresh joint physical verification has found no deficiency, the respondents are bound to accept the remaining rice. The action impugned is violative of principles of natural justice, arbitrary, discriminatory, and infringes the petitioners fundamental and constitutional rights, warranting interference by this Court. 8. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Unitech Limited and others v. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) and others, (2021) 16 SCC 35 to buttress his submissions. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, submits that the writ petition suffers from the vice of non-maintainability, as the petitioners have an efficacious alternative statutory remedy under the very terms of the contract. He submits that Clause 14 of the tender conditions provides for an amicable resolution mechanism, whereby any dispute arising out of the contract may be referred by either party to the District 8 Collector for adjudication, and the decision of the District Collector is binding on both parties as per Clause 14.1. 10. Mr. Thakur further submitted that if either party is aggrieved by the decision of the District Collector, Clause 15.1 expressly provides that an application for arbitration may be filed within 60 days before the Chhattisgarh Arbitration Tribunal, Raipur, whose decision is final and binding. Thus, a complete, structured dispute-resolution mechanism is available under Clauses 14 and 15 of the contract. He further submits that without exhausting this two-tier remedy of approaching the District Collector under Clause 14.1 and thereafter invoking arbitration under Clause 15.1, the petitioners cannot maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is contended that the present petitions are an attempt to bypass the contractual dispute-resolution framework, and therefore ought to be dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative efficacious remedy. 11. Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, learned counsel appearing for Markfed, submits that the writ petition is wholly misconceived and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. It is submitted that the petitioners has incorrectly relied upon the case of M/s Bhuaji Farms Pvt. Ltd., inasmuch as the said mill does not fall within the list of 147 ‘prohibited rice millers’ identified by the State for initiation of recovery for KMS 2023-24, whereas the petitioners’ mill is specifically included in the said list. Therefore, no parity can be 9 claimed with any other miller. It is further contended that once shortage was found in the Joint Physical Verification (JPV) conducted in October–November 2024, the same cannot be obliterated by subsequent stock shown during re-verification. This position, it is submitted, flows from the binding directions issued by the Central Government and the Food Corporation of India (FCI), whereby it has been categorically clarified that original shortages detected during JPV are sacrosanct and cannot be reconciled or regularised on the basis of alleged excess stock shown in subsequent verifications. 12. Mr. Mehta further submits that the petitioners cannot rely upon the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by this Court, as the said order, which is based on the Central Government notification dated 23.01.2025 did not pertain to or dilute shortages earlier identified in physical verification. It is emphatically contended that no contempt arises, as the petitioners was never authorised to deposit the quantity of CMR that stands identified as ‘shortage’ under the governing guidelines. It is argued that the Custom Milling Agreement itself binds the petitioners to abide by the guidelines of the Central Government, State Government and FCI in respect of delivery of CMR, and any failure to deposit the required quantity in the prescribed manner necessarily triggers recovery of the equivalent amount. Since the petitioners admittedly failed to deposit CMR in accordance with the applicable guidelines, Markfed was justified in initiating recovery 10 pursuant to the impugned order. 13. Mr. Mehta contends that the writ petitions are not maintainable in view of the specific alternative statutory remedy provided under Clauses 14.1 and 15 of the Custom Milling Agreement, which mandate that any dispute arising out of the agreement must first be adjudicated by the District Collector and thereafter by way of arbitration before the Chhattisgarh Madhyastam Adhikaran. Without exhausting this statutory mechanism, invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is impermissible. He submits that the petitioners’ allegations regarding non-opening of the online portal or non-allotment of lots are baseless and contrary to record, and that the cut-off date for deposit of CMR has already expired. The petitioners are merely attempting to justify the earlier detected shortage through afterthoughts and unsubstantiated explanations, all of which involve disputed questions of fact that cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, learned counsel submits that the writ petitions are devoid of merit, barred by availability of efficacious statutory remedy, and contrary to the binding guidelines and contractual terms, and therefore deserves to be dismissed with costs. 14. Mr. Prakhar Dashore, learned counsel appearing for the FCI, submits that there is no privity of contract between FCI and the petitioners. It is submitted that the milling agreement has been 11 executed exclusively between the petitioners and Markfed and therefore any contractual obligations arising out of the said agreement are enforceable only between those parties. FCI merely accepts Custom Milled Rice (CMR) in the Central Pool on behalf of the Government of India in accordance with the directions issued by the Union of India from time to time. 15. Mr. Dashore draws attention to the Memorandum of Understanding executed between the State Government and FCI, under which FCI’s role is confined to acceptance of CMR in the Central Pool as a representative of the Central Government. He submits that the Government of India has fixed timelines for procurement of paddy and delivery of CMR for KMS 2023-24, wherein the milling and delivery period was initially notified up to 30.09.2024. This was extended on the request of the State Government up to 31.10.2024, thereafter up to 30.11.2024, 31.12.2024, and finally till 22.02.2025. It is further submitted that beyond 22.02.2025, no request for any further extension has been made by the State Government to the Government of India, and consequently no extension has been granted. In the absence of such extension, FCI is legally prohibited from accepting any quantity of CMR for KMS 2023-24. As FCI accepts CMR only on behalf of Markfed and the State Government, rice millers depositing CMR do so merely as agents of Markfed. Therefore, unless the State Government or Markfed obtains an extension from the Union of India, FCI cannot accept any further CMR for 12 the said season. It is contened that none of the substantive reliefs sought by the petitioners are directed against FCI, and the impugned order dated 06.06.2025 pertains exclusively to the FCI has no objection if the said order is quashed, as the decision does not emanate from or relate to FCI. 16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, carefully examined the rival submissions advanced on both sides, and meticulously perused the pleadings, returns, rejoinders and documents placed on record. 17. Having considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties in both the writ petitions, examined the pleadings, and perused the entire material placed on record with due circumspection, this Court is of the considered view that the dispute raised by the petitioners in the present cases essentially emanates from, and pertains to, the terms and conditions of the Custom Milling Agreement executed between each of the petitioners and Markfed. The allegations regarding non-allotment of lots, non-opening of the online portal, the findings recorded in the Joint Physical Verification (JPV), the petitioners’ readiness and willingness to deposit the balance CMR, and the legality and correctness of the impugned notices dated 06.06.2025 are matters which fall squarely within the contractual domain and necessarily involve adjudication of disputed questions of fact. 18. It is not in dispute that Clauses 14 and 15 of the Custom Milling 13 Agreement provide a complete, two-tier statutory dispute- resolution mechanism. Under Clause 14.1, any dispute arising out of the contract is first required to be placed before the District Collector for an amicable resolution, and the decision of the Collector is expressly made binding on both parties. Thereafter, if either party remains dissatisfied, Clause 15.1 enables them to prefer an application for arbitration before the Chhattisgarh Arbitration Tribunal, Raipur, within a period of 60 days, whose adjudication is final and binding. 19. The aforesaid mechanism is neither illusory nor ineffective; rather, it is a statutorily recognised, purpose-designed forum created for resolving disputes arising out of Custom Milling operations. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a long line of authoritative precedents, has consistently held that when an adequate, efficacious, and contractually stipulated alternative remedy exists, particularly in matters involving disputed questions of fact arising out of purely contractual relationships, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ought not to be exercised. 20. In the present cases, the grievances projected by the petitioners, including the correctness of the JPV conducted during October– November 2024, the implications of the subsequent verification dated 06.02.2025, the alleged discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis similarly situated millers, and the respondents’ refusal to accept CMR despite alleged sufficiency of stock cannot be adjudicated 14 without a detailed factual enquiry, examination of evidence, and appreciation of material which this Court cannot undertake in its writ jurisdiction. 21. Furthermore, the role of FCI is limited to acting as an agency of the Government of India for acceptance of CMR into the Central Pool and only within the timelines approved by the Central Government. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for FCI, no extension beyond 22.02.2025 was sought by the State Government or by Markfed, and consequently no responsibility can be fastened upon FCI to accept CMR beyond the prescribed date. The impugned communication dated 06.06.2025 does not emanate from FCI, and therefore no substantive relief can be granted against FCI in these writ petitions. 22. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners in both writ petitions have attempted to circumvent the agreed and statutorily mandated contractual remedy by directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In view of the existence of an adequate, efficacious, and binding alternative remedy under Clauses 14.1 and 15.1 of the agreement, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. 23. In view of the above, the judgment as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Unitech Limited (supra) is of no assistance to the petitioners in the present cases, as the factual matrix therein is clearly distinguishable and arose in an entirely 15 different context. The Supreme Court’s intervention in Unitech Limited (supra) was premised on exceptional circumstances involving admitted breaches by a State instrumentality and the necessity to enforce public law obligations, whereas the disputes raised in the present writ petitions are purely contractual in nature and require adjudication of disputed questions of fact, for which the petitioners have an efficacious, statutorily prescribed alternative remedy under Clauses 14.1 and 15.1 of the Custom Milling Agreement. 24. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the present cases in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, both the writ petitions being WPC No.3133/2025 and WPC No.3137/2025 stand dismissed, with liberty reserved to the petitioners to first approach the District Collector under Clause 14.1 and, if so advised, thereafter invoke the remedy of arbitration before the Chhattisgarh Arbitration Tribunal under Clause 15.1, strictly in accordance with law. 25. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the respective claims of the parties in either of the writ petitions, and all factual and legal issues are left open to be adjudicated before the appropriate forum. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu