1 2026:CGHC:521-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 958 of 2025 Asif Memon S/o Mr. Ayub Memon Aged About 46 Years Proprietor Of M/s Datar Rice Industries (Unit I I), Jhakar Para, Khutgaon, Devbhog, Gariyabandh, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) 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 District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Maryadit, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 5 - Collector (Food Department) Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 6 - District Markieting Officer Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Maryadit, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh. 7 - Food Corporation Of India Through Its General Manager, Mowa, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.01.07 10:49:27 +0530 2 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Das, Add. A.G., Ms. Annapuran Tiwari, SCGC, Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate and Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Raza Ali, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondents / State, Ms. Annapuran Tiwari, learned Senior Central Government Counsel, Mr. R.S. Patel and Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, learned counsel for respective respondents on I.A. No.02/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 164 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.02/2025 i.e. application for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 4. The present writ appeal is preferred assailing the order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 1540/2025 (Asif Memon v. Union of India and Others), 3 whereby, the petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein was dismissed. 5. It has been pointed out by learned counsel, appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 868/2025 (Asif Memon vs. Union of India & Others) vide order dated 04.12.2025, observing as follows : “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 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 4 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. 15. We do not find any merit in this appeal and as such, the same stands dismissed.” They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 868/2025, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 6. 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 WA No. 868/2025, this Court deems it appropriate not 5 to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 868/2025. 7. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 04.12.2025 passed in WA No. 868/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet