1 2026:CGHC:25824 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3062 of 2026 • Vikas Agrawal (Sole Proprietor Vikas Traders), S/o Natthu Lal Agarwal, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Vikas Poha, Lakholi, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Market Federation Maryadit, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. District Marketing Officer Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4. The Collector (Food Department) Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate. For State/Respondents No.1, 3 & 4 : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Deputy G.A. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Astha Shukla, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 24/06/2026 1. Heard. 2. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:- “A. Quash the impugned notice bearing No.363/2026 dated 05.05.2026 issued by respondent No.3; 10.2 Issue direction or order, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to deposit the remaining quantity of rice against Agreement No.MA42763 for KMS 2024-25; 10.3 Grant any other relief as deemed fit and DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the MARKFED submits that the petitioner has to avail the arbitration clause as provided in the agreement executed between the petitioner and MARKFED as tripartite agreement, as such petitioner has to approach before the concerned Collector. The arbitration proceedings and filing of this petition with a relief by the petitioner that respondent/MARKFED may be directed to receive quantity of rice, is not maintainable. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since there is a arbitration clause and the concerned Collector has to decide the arbitration, if it is filed by the petitioner, as such liberty may be granted to the petitioner to approach before the concerned Collector while invoking arbitration clause as stated in the agreement. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, petitioner is at liberty to approach before the concerned Collector while invoking arbitration clause in order to decide the dispute between the parties. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 8. Interlocutory application(s), pending if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Deepti Jha