1 2025:CGHC:58975-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 868 of 2025 Asif Memon S/o Mr. Ayub Memon, Aged About 46 Years Proprietor of M/s Datar Rice Industries, Jhakar Para, Khutgaon, Devbhog, Gariyabandh, Dist. Gariyabandh C.G. ... Appellant 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 (C.G.) 3 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Maryadit, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Gariyaband, Dist. Gariyaband (C.G.) 5 - Collector (Food Department) Gariyaband, Dist. Gariyaband (C.G.) 6 - District Marketing OfÏcer Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Maryadit, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.) 7 - Food Corporation Of India Through Its General Manager, Mowa, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title Taken from Case Information System) 2 For Appellant : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Praveen Das, Deputy Advocate General For Respondents No. 3 to 7 : Mr. Anadi Sharma and Mr. R.S.Patel, Advocates. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 04/12/2025 1 Heard Mr. Raza Ali, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Tushardhar Diwan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, Mr. Praveen Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, Mr. R.S.Patel and Mr. Anadi Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 3 to 7. 2 By this appeal under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, the appellant/writ petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 07.04.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 1362/2025, and in effect set aside the order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the respondent No. 3 and further to allow the relief as claimed in the writ petition and direct the respondents to permit the appellant/writ petitioner for milling of rice and lifting of paddy for the year 2024-25 by removing the block in their NIC Portal and/or pass such other orders in favour of appellant protecting the right and interest of the appellant. 3 The facts, as projected by the appellant are that the appellant used to work as rice miller and for every year as agreement had been entered by and between the appellant and respondent No. 3 MARKFED through the District Marketing OfÏcer (for short, the DMO) respondent No.6 and as per which the appellant was permitted to lift the paddy and deposit the custom milled rice (for short, the CMR). For the year 2024-25 also in the 3 month of the December, the respondent No. 3 and 6 have entered into an agreement for the milling of rice and as per agreement, the appellant was been permitted to lift some part of the paddy (not entire paddy) but suddenly without any notice or show cause, has stopped the work of the appellant as per the agreement and when several attempts has been made by the appellant to continue the work but no response has been made, thereafter the matter has been referred on the request of the appellant and on an application of respondent No. 6 before the Collector as per the clause of the agreement. The respondent No. 4 Collector after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, specially looking to less paddy lifting in the district has passed the order dated 27.01.2025 and directed to permit the appellant and other 12 rice millers to work for the KMS 2024-25 and also issued other directions. Thereafter also when the respondents did not permit the appellant to work in accordance with the agreement, then the appellant filed the writ petition making several averments including the notification of the State Government. 4 The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner alongwith other similarly situated petitions vide order dated 07.04.2025 observing that when contractual remedy by way of arbitration was available and the dispute pertained to interpretation of policy or contract terms, parties ought to have availed such remedy rather than invoking the writ jurisdiction. The action of the respondent authorities was held to be based on valid policy decisions warranting no interference. 5 Mr. Raza Ali, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that from perusal of clause 14.1 of the agreement (Annexure P/2 to the writ petition), it would be clear that the agreement provides that in case of any dispute, either of the parties have to approach before the Collector 4 and the order of the Collector would be binding on the parties and in the present case the parties i.e. MARKED through DMO and appellant has already referred the matter to the respondent No. 5 Collector and the respondent No. 5 Collector after perusing the entire circumstances and situation has passed the order dated 27.01.2025 and thereby directed to permit the rice miller including the appellants to perform the milling work i.e. lifting of paddy and depositing of CMR for the year 2024-25 and thus the said order is binding on the parties as per the clause 14.1 of the agreement and the said order has not been considered by the learned Single Judge and thereby rejected the writ petition. Clause 15 of the agreement can only be invoked by the parties who has to oppose the order passed by the Collector under clause 14.1. In the present case the order passed by the Collector is in favour of the appellant and therefore, if the respondents No. 3, 6 and 7 had any grievance, then they had the liberty to challenge the same and therefore the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the Collector directing the respondents No. 3 and 6 to permit the appellant to perform the milling work for the year 2024-25 is binding on the respondent No. 3, 6 and 7 but the learned Single Judge has not considered the said aspect of the matter and passed the impugned order dated 07.04.2025 contrary to the records and therefore the same may be set aside under appellate jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court. Mr. Raza further submits that the learned Single Judge has relied on the clause 14.1 of the agreement and held that there is alternate resolution of dispute between the parties and therefore writ petition was not maintainable but failed to see that prior to filing of the writ petition, clause 14.1 of the agreement has been invoked and order has been passed in favour of the appellant and but respondents has not followed the same, whereas the said order is binding on the parties and therefore the 5 appellant had invoked the writ jurisdiction and the same was maintainable and therefore the order passed by the learned Single Judge is apparently erroneous on the record and liable to be set aside. The reason for restraining the appellant from milling work for the year 2024- 25 is that the rice mill where the 100% of rice has not been delivered for last year and where the shortage has been identified on earlier joint physical verification of paddy of last year i.e. 2023-24 has been restrained from milling work for the year 2024-25, whereas the appellant has already challenged the same before the Hon'ble High Court and order dated 04.02.2025 has been passed by the Hon'ble High Court and directed to accept the rice for the year 2023-24 subject to joint physical verification (for short, the JVP) conducted in presence of the ofÏcials of MARKFED, FCI and the State Government and in compliance of the said order, fresh JPV has been conducted and no shortage has been identified but the respondent has refused to accept the rice for the last year 2023-24 and for which contempt petition has been filed by the rice millers which is pending before the Hon'ble High Court, whereas based on the same order passed in respect of other rice miller of Pendra after passing of the similar order by the Hon'ble High Court, fresh JPV has been conducted and rice has been accepted though on earlier JPV shortage was identified but in case of appellant even after order of Hon'ble High Court, rice has not been accepted when no shortage was found in JPV conducted as per order of Hon'ble High Court and therefore the appellants cannot be restrained from performing the milling work for the year 2024-25. 6 According to Mr. Raza, the agreement has been entered in the month of December, 2024 after the direction of the respondent No. 2 vide notification dated 13.12.2024 and thereby directed to enter into an 6 agreement with the rice millers for the year 2024-25 who have delivered 70% of rice for the last year and the appellant has delivered rice for the last year about 90% and based on the said notification the agreement for the current year 2024-25 has been entered and suddenly on 03.01.2025 the respondents have stopped the appellant and other rice millers from milling work for the year 2024-25 without passing any separate order and relying on the notification dated 02.01 2025 of respondent No. 1. whereas the notification dated 02.01.2025 has been issued for the reason that the milling work for the last year i.e. 2023-24 ended on 31.12.2024 for that reason the said notification was issued but respondent No.1 by itself has issued another notification dated 23.01.2025 thereby extended the delivery of rice for the last year 2023- 24 and thus the said notification has already been diluted or withdrawn automatically but the same has been wrongly interpreted by the respondents, even otherwise after entering into an agreement in December, 2024 the subsequent notification cannot be passed to change the terms of the agreement. The appellant is working as rice miller for last one decade and no such complaint has arisen but for the last year and this year such situation has arisen, and the reason is that the respondent No. 3 and 6 used to provide stake or lots through their online portal wing app, where the server is always down and further the number which has been provided has not came i.e. turn has not been came and the time got expired for this reason delivery of rice has not been done till 31.12 2024, however after extending of time, the respondents has not provided stakes on their portal for the delivery of rice for the last year even after the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the Hon'ble High Court and therefore non-delivery of rice for the last year or any shortage of paddy found in the last year cannot be reason to restrain the appellant from 7 performing the rice for the current year i.e. 2024-25 for which separate agreement has been entered knowing well about the previous year and further the order of the Hon'ble High Court is also their in favour of the appellants for the delivery of rice for the last year and therefore the learned Single Judge failed to consider the said aspect of the matter and passed the order impugned not sustainable in the eye of law. Even otherwise, if there is any alternate remedy available in the agreement, the writ petition is maintainable if the act of the respondent affects the fundamental rights of the appellant, mere existence of the alternate remedy clause in an agreement does not bars the writ jurisdiction, as the act of the respondents without passing any order for restraining from working for the period of 2024-25 and only not opening the block on the online portal effects the rights of the petitioner specially their livelihood and the same is not permissible in the eye of law and here in the present case the clause of alternate remedy has been availed and the authority has passed the order in favour of the appellant but despite of that the same has not been followed and therefore the order of the learned Single judge is contrary to law and requires the interference of this Hon'ble High Court. The respondents are very well aware about the facts of the last year work of milling and despite of no-delivery of entire rice for the last year the respondents has entered into an agreement for the current year of 2024-25 and therefore they cannot stop the appellant from milling work for the current year 2024-25 and further if the appellant after entering into an agreement does not complete the work makes them liable for punishment for the forfeiture of bank guarantee and other fine and also effects the livelihood of the appellant and the said aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. The present is a 8 case where there is an error apparent on the face of record, which needs correction in exercise of appellate jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. 7 On the other hand, Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/Union of India, Mr. Praveen Das, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and Mr. Anadi Sharma, learned counsel opposes this appeal and place reliance on the return filed before the learned Single Judge. 8 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9 On the last date of hearing i.e. 27.11.2025, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents No. 2 to 5 had submitted that he would obtain instructions regarding the letter dated 27.01.2025 (Annexure A/2) issued by the Collector, Gariyaband wherein certain recommendations have been made concerning the DMO, Gariyaband to respondent No. 2-Secretary, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Government of Chhattisgarh. As per the instructions received, Mr. Das, has drawn attention of this Court to Annexure A/2, wherein in the table at serial No. 7 and 8 the millers, which are being represented by the appellant, there was a verification of paddy and in respect of those millers whose paddy was found short during verification for the procurement year 2023-24, there was a specific ban for supply of rice for the year 2024-2025. So the Collector has stated in the said letter that those rice millers who are keen to submit rice for the 2024-2025, they may be permitted. The Secretary has forwarded the letter dated 27.01.2025 to the MARKFED on 21.02.2025 stating that after examining, they may proceed in accordance with law. The effort was to resolve the issue. There are ‘n’ number of rice millers including 9 the appellant who were miserably short of supplying the rice to the MARKFED and in the investigation and the inquiry, they did not had sufÏcient paddy to convert it into rice. Still efforts were made for those whose paddy was short in 2023-2024, they were asked to deposit some fine adjust it in their earnest money and continue supplying of rice in 2024-205. 70 millers have complied with the liberty granted and they have deposited certain fine, adjusted the money with their EMD, however, 74 millers are still ready to deposit the fine amount, but not the appellant. There is a dispute with respect to the appellant that it does not want to comply, it does not want to invoke the liberty granted by the respondents. 10 Mr. Ali submits that the shortage with respect to the last year i.e. 2023- 2024 has already been resolved as no shortage was found on inspection despite of that, the rice has not been taken for the last year. That dispute has already been resolved. 11 Mr. Anadi Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent-MARKFED submits that there are as many as 23 communications from 02.01.2025 to 30.07.2025 in between the departments on the issue in question. The respondent has to recover Rs. 34.03 Crores from the appellant for which the MARKFED has issued notice which has not been apprised to this Hon’ble Court. Had the appellant made the payment of the said amount, it would have been permitted for the year 2024-25 for the CMR because the Government of India, on their request which was made to the State Government, the State Government had forwarded the same because 147 such rice millers were there who were found shortage for the year 2023-2024. Out of 147, 70 millers have deposited the money and it was a policy decision after Cabinet meetings that 70 millers had already deposited the amount which was found shortage for 2023-2024. They 10 have deposited the money in the Bank Accounts and they were being allowed. 77 millers even for them, the MARKFED has requested on the similar grounds, approval may be given for them as well. But with respect to the recovery amount, they are not desirious of depositing. Mr. Sharma has drawn attention of this Court to the letter dated 02.01.2025 (Annexure R/1 to the writ petition) which states that mills where shortage of paddy has been identified or where stock has been found in uncountable manner during Joint Physical Verification shall not be allowed to deliver CMR of KMS 2024-2025. The Central Government, vide the said letter has stated that the Government of India has granted approval to allow delivery of CMR out of paddy procured during KMS 2024-2025 exclusively by those mills which have successfully delivered 100% CMR for KMS 2023-2024. 12 Mr. Das as well as Mr. Sharma have drawn attention of this Court to clause 13.3, 13.8 of the agreement (Annexure P/2 to the writ petition) to state that the directions/policy/guidelines issued by the Government of India, State Government and the Marketing Federation from time to time shall be part of the agreement and binding upon the parties. They further press upon clause 14.1 and 15.1 of the agreement to state that in case of any dispute, a representation can be made to the Collector and if any party is aggrieved by the decision of the Collector, then the matter may be referred for Arbitration and as such, the appellant ought to have taken recourse to the said mechanism. 13 The learned Single Judge, vide its order dated 07.04.2025 has observed that the appellant claims that despite no shortage being found during subsequent JPV, it has been unjustly denied permission to lift paddy and fulfill their contractual obligations. From the record, it was clear that the original JPV findings during KMS 2023–24 identified shortages in the 11 stock held by the appellant. Subsequent communications from the Government of India (letter dated 02.01.2025) and the Food Corporation of India (letters dated 13.01.2025, 10.02.2025, 17.02.2025, and 02.04.2025) uniformly directed that rice millers with such deficiencies shall not be permitted to participate in KMS 2024–25, and explicitly rejected the validity of any re-verification exercises. These policy directions are binding on the implementing agency, MARKFED, which has no discretion to act contrary to them. Moreover, the appellant has not challenged the validity of those binding central communications and have instead limited their challenge to actions taken by MARKFED and State authorities. The appellants have relied on recommendation of the Collector dated 27.01.2025 and on fresh JPV reports, these do not override or nullify the binding policy decisions of the Central Government or the FCI. 14 There is dispute between the appellant and the respondent-MARKFED with respect to the shortage of paddy and such issue cannot be decided in a writ petition. According to the respondent-MARKFED, the appelant is required to deposit a huge sum of Rs. 34.03 Crores which is being disputed by the appellant. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that clause 14.1 and 15 of the Custom Milling Agreement provided a structured dispute resolution mechanism involving the District Collector and ultimately the Chhattisgarh Arbitration Tribunal and the dispute raised in the writ petition, particularly the validity of JPV findings and compliance history, are factual in nature and not amenable to resolution under writ jurisdiction the parties were relegated to the remedy of arbitration. We are in full agreement with the findings and observations made by the learned Single Judge. 12 15 We do not find any merit in this appeal and as such, the same stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Anu / Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.12.08 18:04:05 +0530