1 2025:CGHC:60516-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 12440 of 2025 Ghurau Ram S/o Ude Ram Aged About 40 Years R/o House No. 314, Ward No. 18, Bazar Chowk, Limora, Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh- 491227 ... Petitioner(s) 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 Raod, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh 6. Society Manager Primary Co-Operative Society Limited, Karhibhadar, Balod, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.12.12 17:01:47 +0530 2 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. Aditya Dhar Diwan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2 and Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 3. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “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 3 by this Court vide judgment dated 28.10.2025 in WPC No. 5586 of 2025 & batch, whereby the Division Bench of 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 petition is identical to that of WPC No. 5586 of 2025 & batch, this petition may also be dismissed 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 petition is identical to WPC No. 5586 of 2025 & batch, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WPC No. 5586 of 2025 & batch. 5. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed in terms of the order dated 28.10.2025 passed in WPC No. 5586 of 2025 & batch. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan