1 2026:CGHC:27333-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3377 of 2026 1 - M/s Mayur Parivahan, A Partnership Firm Carrying On The Business Of Handling And Transportation, Acting In The Premises Through Its Partner Shri Radhe Shyam Sharma, Son Of Shri Ramgopal Sharma, Near Marvadi Kunwa, Sanjay Ward, Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 - Radhe Shyam Sharma Son Of Shri Ramgopal Sharma, Aged About 63 Years Resident Of Sanjay Ward, Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Food Corporation Of India, A Body Corporate Constituted Under The Food Corporation Constituted Under The Food Corporation Act, 1964 Having Its Principal Place Of Business At 18-20 Bara Khamba Lane, New Delhi 110001, Inter Alia, Regional Office At Vidhan Sabha Road, Kapa, Post - Pandri, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Through Its General Manager. 2 - Shri Manoj Verma, Manager, Vishrampur Depot, Food Corporation Of India, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.P. Sharma and Mr. M.L. Sakat, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.07.03 15:57:22 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. B.P. Sharma and Mr. M.L. Sakat, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.S. Patel, learned counsel for respondents. 2. The petitioners have filed this petition praying for following relief:- “10.1 A writ and/ or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue calling relevant records pertaining to case of the petitioners for perusal of this Hon'ble Court, if thinks fit in the facts & circumstances of case. 10.2 A writ and/ or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue directing the respondent No.1 Corporation / respondent No.2 to take decision in respect of grievances raised by the petitioners as early as on 4.8.2023 3.10.2023, 16.4.2026 and various other representations made thereafter (Annexure P-1 coly) within the time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court in the facts & circumstances of case 10.3 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue directing the respondents to make payment of the amount payable to the petitioners had the illegal recoveries have not been made in malicious manner and in the facts & circumstances of case; 10.4 Cost of the proceedings. 10.5 Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts & circumstances of case.” 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent authorities, being instrumentalities of the State, are under a constitutional and statutory obligation to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with law. Despite repeated representations submitted by the petitioners since the year 2023, highlighting the illegal acts, omissions and commissions on the part of respondent No.2, which have not only caused substantial financial loss to respondent No.1 but have also resulted in arbitrary and illegal recoveries from the petitioners, no reasoned decision has been taken by the authorities. It is submitted that the respondents were duty bound to objectively examine the grievances raised by the petitioners and, upon finding the claims to be genuine, to take appropriate remedial measures, including payment of compensation for the losses suffered. The continued inaction and arbitrary conduct of the respondents have compelled the petitioners to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, as such actions are violative of the petitioners’ fundamental, constitutional and contractual rights. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the grievance raised by the petitioners no longer survives, as the representations preferred by the petitioners have already been duly considered and decided by the respondent authorities. It is contended that the Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Raipur, vide communication dated 13.10.2025, after conducting an enquiry through its Operations Department, found that the 4 demurrage charges were levied due to the contractors’ failure to provide adequate trucks and labour for handling the concerned railway rakes. It was further concluded that the Divisional Office had recovered the demurrage amount from the contractors in the same proportion as the charges imposed by the Railways and, therefore, no illegality or arbitrariness was found in the recovery. On the strength of the said decision, it is submitted that the representations of the petitioners stand finally disposed of and no further direction is warranted in the present writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents brought on record. 6. Since the representations submitted by the petitioners have already been considered and decided by the respondent authorities vide communication dated 13.10.2025, no further direction survives for consideration in the present writ petition. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the petitioners are still aggrieved, they shall be at liberty to take recourse to law as may be available to them in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet