1 2026:CGHC:5187-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 369 of 2026 Rakshak Securitas Private Limited Through Its State Head, Pankaj Singh, Aged About 40 Years, S/o Akshayawat Singh Reg. Office T-5, Plot No. 12, Manish Plaza-III, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi 110075 ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Cum Commissioner Commercial Tax (Excise) Department Chhattisgarh, North Block, Sector-19, Commercial Tax And Gst Bhavan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited (CSMCL) Through Its Managing Director, Aabkari Bhavan, Near Chokra Nala, Labhandi, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Financial Advisor Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited (CSMCL), Aabkari Bhavan, Near Chokra Nala, Labhandi, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Deputy General Mangar Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited (CSMCL), Aabkari Bhavan, Near Chokra Nala, Labhandi, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - District Excise Cum Officer District Manager Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited (CSMCL), South Bastar, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.01.31 10:36:12 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent No.1- State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General For Respondents No.2 to 5 : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 30.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State/respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 5. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 20.01.2026 (Annexure P/1), issued by the Respondent No. 2 Financial Advisor, CSMCL, Raipur to the extent that it has deducted an amount of ₹50,58,170/- and states further deduction in two installments for a total amount of ₹1,52,47,774/-. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 3 Financial Advisor, CSMCL, Raipur to release the deducted amount of ₹50,58,170/- and further direct to not deduct the stated two installments. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass such further orders or directions as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner firm is a duly empanelled placement agency with a consistent record of satisfactory performance and was entrusted with a limited contractual role of supplying manpower. In discharge of its obligations, the petitioner appointed a District Coordinator who regularly carried out inspections at multiple locations without any reported irregularity. In respect of the Foreign Composite Liquor Shop at Bacheli, the District Coordinator not only performed his duties diligently but also promptly reported illegal activities and obstruction by the Excise Sub-Inspector to the respondent authorities, both orally and in writing. It was solely on account of such disclosures by the petitioner’s employee that the alleged irregularities came to light, clearly establishing the petitioner as a whistleblower and not a participant in any misconduct. 4. It is further submitted that the inspection reports; both preliminary and final, categorically attribute the alleged financial irregularities to the acts of the Excise Sub-Inspector and the failure of the other two agencies, namely the cash collection agency and the auditing 4 agency, to discharge their respective contractual duties. Despite this, the respondent authority has arbitrarily fastened the entire liability upon the petitioner firm and effected unilateral recovery without adjudication of liability or consideration of material on record, thereby acting in gross violation of contractual terms, principles of natural justice and settled law. The impugned deduction is thus ex facie illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 5 jointly submit that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of Clause 16 of the agreement executed between the parties, which provides for resolution of disputes through arbitration at Raipur. It is urged that any dispute arising out of or in connection with the contract, including issues relating to recovery, forfeiture of security deposit or alleged breach of contractual terms, is required to be adjudicated under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. However, it is submitted that the objection based on availability of arbitration is misconceived in the facts of the present case, inasmuch as the impugned deduction vide order dated 20.01.2026 has been effected unilaterally, without determination of liability, without adjudication of disputed facts, and in complete disregard of the inspection reports on record which attribute the 5 alleged irregularities to the Excise Sub-Inspector and the other two agencies. Such arbitrary and ex facie illegal action of the respondents-Corporation, being a State instrumentality, falls within the recognized exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, and therefore, the availability of an arbitration clause does not operate as a bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that the disputes raised by the petitioner, touching upon the validity of the termination order, forfeiture of security deposit, and imposition of penalty, arise directly out of the contractual terms between the parties. Clause 16 of the agreement provides a specific mechanism for resolution of such disputes by way of arbitration before the competent authority. 8. In view of the settled position of law that where an efficacious alternative remedy is available and the parties are bound by the terms of their contract, the writ jurisdiction ought not to be exercised to adjudicate contractual disputes involving disputed questions of fact, this Court finds no ground to entertain the present petition. 6 9. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to avail the remedy available to him under Clause 16 of the agreement, which stipulates resolution of disputes through arbitration proceedings. 10. In view of the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioner, the present petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for. It is further observed that the petitioner shall also be at liberty to take recourse to such other remedies as may be available to him in law, if occasion so arises. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu