1 2026:CGHC:22804 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2493 of 2026 1 - Kumar Nayak S/o Shri Alekh Ram Aged About 44 Years Posted As -Procurement Centre In-Charge, Navagaon -58001402 In The Gramin Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit-Patewa, Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan 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 Jhalap Distt. -Mahasamund Of The Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Raipur Through Branch Manager, Branch Jhalap 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 Chhattisgarh. 6 - District Mark-Fed Officer Chhattisgarh Rajya Sajkari Vipnan Sangh Mahasamund District-Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 7 - The Collector Mahasamund District -Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 8 - The Society Manager Gramin Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Patewa 1079, Mahasamund District -Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 9 - The Gramin Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Patewa -1079 Through Authorized Officer Of The Gramin Sewa Sahkari Samiti Maryadit -Patewa Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. G.A. For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondents No. 4 & 6 : Mr. Arpit Parakh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 14/05/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “a) Quash and set aside the impugned letter dated 15.04.2026 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondents; b) 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; c) Direct the respondents not to take any coercive or recovery action against the petitioner in respect of the alleged shortage; d) Direct the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's representation in accordance with law and in 3 light of Clause 13 of the Agreement; e) Grant any other relief(s) 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 15.04.2026 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 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 4 dated 15.04.2026 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 Raghu Jat