1 2026:CGHC:23295 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2569 of 2026 1 - Hemant Kumar Chandrakar S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Chandrakar Aged About 46 Years Posted As - Procurement Centre In-Charge, Bemcha In The Gramin Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit - Bemcha 850, Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund,chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur Through, Manager, Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Mahasamund Distt- Mahasamund Of The Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur, Through, Branch Manager, Branch Mahasamund, Distt- Mahasamund Of The Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipnan Sangh, Through - Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipnan Sangh, 6th Floor, Tower C Cbd, Sector - 21 Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Deputy Commissioner Co-Operative And Deputy Registrar, Co- Operative Societies, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, 2 Chhattisgarh. 6 - District Mark-Fed Officer, Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahkari Vipnan Sangh, Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 7 - The Collector Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 8 - The Society Manager Gramin Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit- Bemcha 850, Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 9 - The Gramin Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Bemcha 850, Mahasamund, Through Authorized Officer Of The Gramin Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit- Bemcha 850, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State For Respondent No. 2 & 3 For Respondent No. 4 & 5 : : : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. G.A. Ms. Seema Verma on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 15/05/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: 10.1 Quash and set-aside the impugned letter dated 08.05.2026 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondents. 3 10.2 Hold that the alleged shortage of paddy is on account of natural drying and delay in lifting by the respondents, and the petitioner cannot be held liable for the same. 10.3 Direct the respondents not to take any coercive or recovery action against the petitioner in respect of the alleged shortage. 10.4 Direct the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation in accordance with law and in light of Clause 13 of the Agreement. 10.5 Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Learned counsel appearing jointly for respondents No. 2 to 4 and 6 submits that there exists an arbitration clause between the parties, in terms whereof the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy to raise his grievances before the concerned Arbitrator. It is further submitted that instead of availing the said statutory and contractual remedy, the petitioner has directly approached this Court by filing the present petition, and therefore, the same is not maintainable in the eyes of law. 3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already submitted an application dated 07.05.2026 before the concerned Collector, which is still pending consideration. It is further submitted that despite the pendency of the aforesaid application, the concerned respondent authorities are continuously taking coercive steps against the petitioner, and 4 being aggrieved by such action, the present petition has been filed before this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and further taking into consideration the fact that the arbitration application dated 07.05.2026 filed by the petitioner before the concerned Collector is pending for consideration, it is directed that till the said arbitration application is decided, the concerned respondent authorities shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner in accordance with law. 6. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Madhurima