1 2025:CGHC:57153-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 12356 of 2025 Atma Ram S/o Maya Ram Aged About 60 Years R/o House No. 282, Ward No. 07, Gandhi Chowk, Karhibhadar, Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh Pin 491227 ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Through Its Managing Director, 6th Floor, Tower-C, Commercial Complex, C.B.D., Sector-21, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Bank Limited (Apex Bank) Through Its Commissioner And Registrar Cooperative Societies, Office At Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited Durg, Chhattisgarh, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, In Front Of District Government Hospital, G.E. Road, Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited Balod, Chhattisgarh, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Dalli Chowk, Rajnandgaon Road, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh 6 - Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Maryadit Saankra (K) Tehsil- Balod, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate General For Respondent No.2/ Markfed : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 25 . 11 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents as well as Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No.2/Markfed. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs :- “10.1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned Tender Notice dated 19.08.2025 published by the Respondent No. 2. 10.2. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders and the Respondent authorities may kindly be directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for regularization of services of the Petitioner along with all the consequential benefits. 10.3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the Petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been considered and decided by this Court vide judgment dated 28.10.2025 passed in WPC No. 5586 of 2025 (Malikram Patel vs. State of 3 Chhattisgarh & Others) and connected cases, whereby this Court has held as under:- “6. It is a well-settled principle of law that when a remedy is available, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily be exercised. 7. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of H.P. and Others v Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Another reported in (2005) 6 SCC 499 held that normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternate remedy. 8. The Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., (2020) 19 SCC 172, reiterated that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when a statutory forum is available and has not been availed. 9. In light of the above submission and settled legal position, this Court finds no reason to entertain the present writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioners. Accordingly, all the petitions stand dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy as provided under Section 55(2) of the Chhattisgarh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, if so advised.” They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WPC No. 5586 of 2025 (Malikram Patel vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) and connected cases, this appeal may also be disposed of in the same terms. 4 4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WPC No. 5586 of 2025 and connected cases, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WPC No. 5586 of 2025 and connected cases. 5. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 28.10.2025 passed in WPC No. 5586 of 2025 (Malikram Patel vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) and connected cases. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra