1 2026:CGHC:9056 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 748 of 2026 Narottam Prasad Yadav S/o Shri Soupatram Yadav Aged About 56 Years Society Manager, Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Ganiyari (Regd. No. 891), R/o Vilage Ganiyari, Tahsil Sakri, Distt. Bilaspur, C.G., Mo. No. 8517831821. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Co-Operative, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, Tahsil And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Arbitrator Cum Collector Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Co- Operative Marketing Federation Limited, 6th Floor, Tower-C, Commercial Complex Cbd, Sector 21, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipadan Sangh Maryadit Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Societies Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents 1 & 2/State : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondents 3 & 4. : Mr. Vikram Dixit, Advocate For Respondent No.5 : Ms. Seema Verma, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 20.02.2026 BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2026.02.23 18:02:45 +0530 2 1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the case, from the authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the order dated 05.02.2026 passed by the respondent no. 2 in Arbitration Case No. 202512072100021/B-121/2025- 2026 between "Narottam Prasad Yadav Vs. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited & others" (Annexure-P/1) and further be please to direct to the respondent no. 2 to give opportunity to the petitioner for leading the evidence and also given opportunity of cross examination, is in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was incharge of paddy procurement centre, Ganiyari, Distt. Bilaspur for Paddy procurement year 2020-21. He further submits that on account of shortage, without providing opportunity of hearing, personal liability for shortage of paddy was fixed upon the petitioner, which was challenged by him in WPC No.2134/2022 (Annexure-P/5), in which vide Order dated 09.12.2025, learned Coordinate Bench disposed of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to file arbitration reference in view of Clause 14 of the Proforma Agreement. In pursuant of that order, the petitioner preferred arbitration reference before the Arbitrator-cum-Collector, Bilaspur on 23.12.2025, in which Revenue Case No.202512072100021/B-121 (Annexure-P/1) was registered by the Arbitrator-cum-Collector, Bilaspur. Learned counsel further submits that in the aforesaid arbitration proceedings, the petitioner filed 3 application under Section 24 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act 1996), to provide opportunity to adduce evidence and to cross- examine the witnesses, but the same has been rejected by the Arbitrator- cum-Collector, Bilaspur vide Order dated 05.02.2026, on the ground that the Court has directed to decide the arbitration proceedings within stipulated period. Learned counsel further submits that detail order has been passed by the Coordinate Bench in WPC No.3894/2024, in which it has been directed that if the parties wish, then opportunity to adduce evidence and cross- examination of the witnesses be provided. Thus, order impugned dated 05.02.2026 passed by Arbitrator-cum-Collector, Bilaspur, is completely against the order rendered by the Coordinate Bench in WPC No.3894/2024. Hence, it is prayed that this petition may be disposed of directing the Arbitrator-cum-Collector, Bilaspur/respondent No.2 to provide opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence and cross-examine the witnesses. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that though vide impugned order, the Arbitrator-cum-Collector, Bilaspur has directed the petitioner to file written submission, but opportunity to adduce evidence and cross-examine the witnesses is still under consideration before the Arbitrator-cum-Collector, therefore, no cause is available to the petitioner to file instant petition. However, limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner may be allowed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for other respondents support the submission extended by learned counsel for the State. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 6. Perusal of the impugned Order dated 05.02.2026 shows that the petitioner filed application under Section 24 of the Act, 1996 with specific 4 prayer to provide opportunity to adduce evidence and cross-examine the witnesses, but it has not been allowed by the Arbitrator-cum-Collector, instead thereof, it has directed to file written submission. 7. Similar issue has been considered by the Coordinate Bench in WPC No.3894/2024, in which vide Order dated 01.8.2024, the learned Bench has passed following order in para 5 to 11, which reads as under:- “5.5. Perusal of the order impugned passed by Arbitrator rejecting the application seeking opportunity to lead evidence and cross-examine the witnesses, would show, that the application was dismissed observing that it is the Arbitrator who has to decide whether recording evidence, oral argument or oral hearing to be done or not or whether the proceedings can be concluded based on the pleadings and documents. 6. To appreciate the submission of learned counsel for petitioner, I find it appropriate to extract Provision under Section 24 of the Act of 1996 which reads as under : “24.Hearings and written proceedings - (1) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral tribunal shall decide whether to hold oral hearings for the presentation of evidence or for oral argument, or whether the proceedings shall be conducted on the basis of documents and other materials: Provided that the arbitral tribunal shall hold oral hearings, at an appropriate stage of the proceedings, on a request by a party, unless the parties have agreed that no oral hearing shall be held: [Provided further that the arbitral tribunal shall, as far as possible, hold oral hearings for the presentation of evidence or for oral argument on day- to-day basis, and not grant any adjournments unless sufficient cause is made out, and may impose costs including exemplary costs on the party seeking adjournment without any sufficient cause.] 5 (2) The parties shall be given sufficient advance notice of any hearing and of any meeting of the arbitral tribunal for the purposes of inspection of documents, goods or other property. (3) All statements, documents or other information supplied to, or applications made to the arbitral tribunal by one party shall be communicated to the other party, and any expert report or evidentiary document on which the arbitral tribunal may rely in making its decision shall be communicated to the parties.” 7. Section 24 (1) provides that unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the tribunal shall decide whether to hold oral hearings for the presentation of evidence or for oral argument, or whether the proceedings shall be conducted on the basis of documents and other material. However, under the Proviso, it is envisaged that the Tribunal shall hold oral hearings, at an appropriate stage of the proceedings, on a request by a party, unless the parties have agreed that no oral hearing shall be held. In the Proviso to Section 24 (1) of the Act of 1996, word “shall” is used to hold oral hearings on the request by a party. Section 18 of the Act of 1996 talks that the parties shall be treated with equality and each party shall be given full opportunity to present his case. Under the scheme of the Act of 1996, all the parties before the Arbitrator has to be treated equally and full opportunity to present his case is mandated. 8. In the application submitted by petitioner making a prayer for permitting him to lead evidence and to cross- examine the witnesses, is on the ground that after submission of application / statement of claim, the Arbitrator has called for the report, then the prayer made in application ought to have been allowed. It is the Arbitrator who has called some enquiry report and if the report which is called, was prepared behind the back of petitioner or parties to the arbitration proceedings, he will not get appropriate and full opportunity to make out his case. Restraining parties before the Arbitrator to lead evidence and to cross-examine 6 witnesses, who prepared the enquiry report, will be in contravention of the object sought to achieve by the Act of 1996. 9. In the proceedings of arbitration, both sides are required to give fair and proper opportunity to arbitrate and settle the dispute under the Act of 1996. From the language used under Section 24 (1) of the Act of 1996, Proviso appended thereto, I am of the view that first Proviso to Section 24 (1) of the Act of 1996 requires parties request for oral hearing at the stage of evidence or arguments to be granted unless the right to require oral evidence or oral arguments has been waved by a prior agreement between the parties, the Proviso to Section 24 (1) of the Act of 1996 expresses a legislative preference for the grant of oral hearing at the request of either party. 10. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case where petitioner has sought for oral hearing and to lead evidence and cross-examine witnesses on the ground that enquiry report is called for by the Arbitrator and therefore, prayer made by petitioner appears to be reasonable and could not have been rejected on the technical ground that time limit is fixed for concluding arbitral proceedings. If at all, for any reason, Arbitrator feels that some more time may be required to conclude the proceedings if request for oral hearing is allowed, then the Arbitrator can very well file appropriate proceedings available under the law. Only the ground that, time is short to decide the arbitration application is not justifiable ground to dismiss the application for oral hearing and opportunity to examine and cross-examine witness. 11. For the foregoing discussions, the order dated 16.07.2024 passed in case No. 9/2024 by Arbitrator is not sustainable and it is hereby set aside. The application submitted by petitioner is allowed and Arbitrator is directed to fix the case for oral hearing, grant opportunity of recording of evidence of the parties. However, Arbitrator will be at liberty to fix the time for recording of evidence and cross- examination, if any, in accordance with law as provided under the Act of 1996.” 7 8. This Court is also of the view that if the petitioner wishes to adduce evidence and cross-examine the witnesses, then Arbitrator-cum-Collector, Bilasapur ought to have provided opportunity to the petitioner in view of the provisions of Section 24 of the Act 1996, as has been dealt with by the Coordinate Bench in WPC No.3894/2024. Therefore, this petition is allowed. Impugned Order dated 05.02.2026 passed by the Arbitrator-cum-Collector, Bilaspur/ respondent No.2 is set aside and he is directed to take steps, as has been observed by the Coordinate Bench in para 10 & 11 of the order passed in WPC No.38942024, with respect to providing an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence and cross examine the witnesses. 9. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. 10. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini