1 CGHC010379262026 2026:CGHC:42499 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5001 of 2026 Smt. Sona Jain W/o Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain Aged About 48 Years (Propietor Vardhman Cloth Mill), R/o H No. 73, Ward No. 08, Somni, Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Market Federation Maryadit Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector (Food Department), Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Marketing Officer, Chhattisgarh State Market Federation Maryadit, Joint District Office Building 2nd Floor Room No. 9, Collectorate Complex, Rajnandgoan District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Finance Controller State Market Federation Maryadi, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate For Respective Respondents : Ms. Astha Shukla, Advocate Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 30.09 .2026 1. By filing the present petition, the Petitioner has assailed the impugned Recovery Order dated 16.09.2026 issued by Respondent No. 3, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 69,31,316.94 towards alleged recovery within one week, failing which the amount is 2 sought to be recovered by forfeiting/confiscating the Bank Security/Guarantee/FDR/PDC furnished by the Petitioner under the Custom Milling Rice Agreement for Kharif Marketing Year 2023-24. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned Recovery order dated 16.09.2026 issued by respondent no.3, District Marketing Officer, on direction of respondent no.1 Chhattisgarh State Market Federation Maryadit, Raipur to deposit the recovery amount for sum of Rs. 69,31,316.94 within One week i. By 23.09.2026 or the said sum of amount will be recover by confiscating the Bank Security / Guarantee/F.D.R./P.D.C. given by the petitioner. ii. The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the concerned respondent not take any action against the petitioner prior to final order of Arbitration Tribunal, Raipur. iii. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent, not to forfeit the bank guarantee of the petitioner or not to take any legal action against the petitioner's firm. iv. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s)/ writ(s), order(s) in favor of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts & circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that, despite being aware of the pendency of the arbitration proceedings before the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, the Petitioner did not bring the said fact to the notice of the concerned MARKFED authorities before approaching this Court. It is further submitted that, after receipt of the notice/impugned Recovery Order dated 16.09.2026, the Petitioner directly approached this Court without first informing the concerned MARKFED authorities about the pendency of the arbitration proceedings. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that, insofar as the renewal of the Bank Guarantee/FDR is concerned, if the validity period of the Bank Guarantee has expired, the 3 Petitioner shall renew the same. 3. Learned counsel appearing for MARKFED submits that, had the pendency of the arbitration proceedings been brought to the notice of the concerned MARKFED authority, the said authority might have considered the matter in that light and, possibly, the recovery notice may not have been issued. 4. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, this petition is disposed of without entering into the merits of the case, with liberty to the Petitioner to approach the concerned MARKFED authority and place on record the relevant documents evidencing the pendency of the arbitration proceedings initiated by him. Since the matter is pending before the arbitrational authority, the Petitioner may apprise MARKFED of the same, whereupon the concerned authorities may take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. It is for the concerned authority to consider the application of the Petitioner in accordance with law, while taking into consideration the fact that the arbitration proceedings are pending. In case the Petitioner still has any surviving grievance or urgency after approaching the concerned MARKFED authority, he shall be at liberty to file a fresh petition before this Court. 5. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed of. 6. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Saurabh