1 2025:CGHC:60488-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 919 of 2025 Prateek Agro Industries Through Proprietor- Shivendra Singh, S/o- Late Shri N.K. Rai, Aged- 66 Years, R/o- Village- Raka, Post- Murmunda, Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union Of India Through- Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Krishi Bhawan New Delhi 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur, Atal Nagar District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Managing Director- Chhattisgarh State Market Federation Maryadit Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 4 - C.G. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 5 - Collector (Food Department), Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.12.13 16:04:01 +0530 2 6 - District Marketing OfÏcer Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 7 - Food Corporation Of India (FCI) Regional OfÏce- Mova, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant : Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Senior Advocate alongwith Ms. Deblina Maity, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anmol Sharma, CGC For Respondents/ State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate General For Respondents No. 3 & 6 : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Advocate For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Prakhar Doshre, 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. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 3322/2025 (Prateek Agro Industries vs. Union of India & Others), whereby, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein was disposed of by the learned Single Judge. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per the status before the learned writ Court. 2. (a) The case of the writ petitioner is that the petitioner, for the purpose of Custom Milling Policy in the Kharif Marketing Year 2023- 24, entered into a contract with the government and contract letter 3 has been executed between District Marketing OfÏcer, District Rajnandgaon i.e. respondent no. 6 on behalf of Chhattisgarh State Co-Operation Association Limited as First party and the petitioner i.e. Second Party Proprietor -Pratik Agro Industries, functioning at Khasra No.651/3, Badhiyatola, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, CG with Mill registration no. MA429704, under Chhattisgarh Custom Milling Instructions of the Government, C.G. Government, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Ministry of Raipur Nava Raipur, under the instructions issued regarding custom milling of paddy procured in the year 2023- 24. (b) Thereafter the petitioner lifted 29490 quintals of FCI paddy and 22260 quintals of NAN paddy as per contract agreement. Subsequently the petitioner depositing the CMR day by day, however, due to closure of online portal, the petitioner could not deposit the entire CMR, which is a bona fide mistake and as such, the denial in accepting the balance of CMR since December, 2004 is contrary to the principle of natural justice. Subsequently on the basis of the order of this Court, the date was extended from 10-05- 2025 to 30-06-2025 to deposit the balance CMR of 2023-24. Thereafter the petitioner sent the lot of 290 quintals but failed to deposit the same as online portal was locked. For which the petitioner moved a representation, however, the same does not yield any fruitful result. 4 3. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties, disposed of the writ petition observing thus, at paras 18 & 19 :- xx xxx xxx 18. From the above decision in similar circumstances it has been held that when contractual remedy by way of arbitration is available and the dispute pertains to interpretation of policy or contract terms, parties must avail such remedy rather than invoking the writ jurisdiction. It is ordered accordingly. 19. In view of the above, this Court does not find any good ground to grant the reliefs as prayed for in this writ petition and the same does not call for interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that while passing the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the entire facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective. He would submit that due to arbitrary and wrongful approach of the respondents, the petitioner has been debarred from depositing the balance of 3155.11 Quintals of Custom Milled Rice of the year 2023-24 till date even after his sincere efforts and on the contrary the concerned respondents are in process of recovery to the said sum of amount of the CMR (Custom Milled Rice) 2023-24 from the petitioner by forfeiting the Bank Guarantee/FDR/PDC cheques deposited by him as security in order to harass the petitioner mentally and financially. According to the petitioner due to closure of online portal, the petitioner could not deposit the entire 5 CMR, which is a technical fault and hence, the same cannot be attributed to the petitioner. He would submit that pursuant to the order of this Court, when the petitioner tried to sent a lot of 290 quintals of CMR, the same could not succeed because of closure of online portal, for which he approached the authorities and running from pillar to post but the same does not fructify. He would next contend that the petitioner has made several representations to unlock the online portal/miller ID and to accept the remaining balance of CMR of 3155.11 Quintals. 5. On the other hand, while supporting the order impugned, learned counsel for respondents would submit that the Markfed functions purely as a facilitator and intermediary in the execution of custom milling agreements. It operates strictly in accordance with the directions issued from time to time by the Central Government, the State Government, and the Food Corporation of India (FCI). Markfed has no independent authority to take policy decisions or deviate from binding directives. They would further submit that in case of any dispute the petitioner may take recourse to the arbitration clause as provided in the agreement. He further contended that as per the policy the respondents are not bound to accept the balance quantity of the CMR of Kharif Year 2023-24 and there is a shortage in the quantity of the CMR. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 6 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that due to closure of online portal, he was unable to deposit the CMR and as such, the manner of denial in accepting the balance of CMR from the petitioner is contrary to the well-settled principles of natural justice. 8. From the material available on record, and the agreement executed between the parties, it is crystal clear that if there is any dispute arose between the parties, they are required to avail the remedy of arbitration clause as has been enumerated in clauses 15.1 and 15.2 of the agreement, which reads as under:- “15.1 अनुबंध की की डि की 14.1 की अत्ቇत संबंधिधत जिला कीलाक्टर ቛኋर डिकीये ्ቇये डिनु्ቓये की डिरू्ቍ उभयेपኘ᭎" ቛኋर डिद की डिनु्ቓये हेत 60 दिदसं की भ&तर आबं(቏ኔशनु हेत छ . ्ቇ . मध्येस्येतम अधिधकीर्ቓ रयेपर ( छ . ्ቇ .) की संमኘ᭎ आदनु ्ቚस्तत डिकीये संकी ्ቇ , जिसंकी डिनु्ቓये अडितम हे0्ቇ 0 अभयेपኘ᭎" की0 मन्ये हे0्ቇ। 15.2 आबं(቏ኔशनु म3 डिकीये ्ቇये डिनु्ቓये सं येदिद उभये पኘ᭎ म3 सं की0ई असंत्ቖ हे0त हे6, त0 हे अन्ये डिधिधकी ्ቚधनु" की उपये0्ቇ कीर संकी ्ቇ।" 9. The petitioner without availing the arbitration clause with regard to dispute pertains to contract terms, straightway approached this Court which is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned Single Judge after considering all the aspect of the matter, has rightly disposed of the writ petition on the ground of availability of arbitration clause. 10. The identical case i.e. WA No. 868/2025 (Asif Memon vs. Union of India & Ors.) came up for consideration before this Court, wherein this Court vide judgment dated 04/12/2025, dismissed the 7 writ appeal holding thus at para 14 :- “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.” 11. It is a well-settled principle of law that when a remedy is available, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not ordinarily be exercised. 12. 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 efÏcacious alternate remedy. 13. 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 8 availed. 14. In light of the above submissions and settled legal position, this Court finds no reason to entertain the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when an efÏcacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner. 15. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 16. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S. Bhilwar