(Order reserved on 01/07 /2025) v. Union of India Through Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food

: Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, CGC For State/Respondents No.2 & 5 : Mr. Satish Gupta, GA For Respondents No.3 & 6 For Respondent No.7 : : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Advocate Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate along with Mr. Ashish Sahu, Advocate ASHUTOSH MISHRA MISHRA 11:12:53 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma CAV Order Heard.

1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not accepting the balance of Custom Milled Rice (CMR) 1190.79 Quintals of the petitioner even after the notification dated 29/05/2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 whereby the time has been extended to accept the CMR of Kharif Year 2023-24 from the rice millers.

2. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is praying for the following relies:- I) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the concerned respondent to open the on-line portal/activate Wings App and Miller Id of the petitioner and accept the remaining balance of CMR oof 1190.79 Quintals of Kharif year 2023-24 in the light of notification dated- 29.05.2025 issued by respondent no. 3 (whereby the time to deposit the CMR of the year 2023-24 has been further extended till 30.06.2025), and further protect the petitioner from confiscation of the bank guarantee/ FDR and Post Dated Cheques of the petitioner deposited as security with the bank for this Kharif year 2023-24. (II) 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.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner for the purpose of Custom Milling Policy in the Kharif Marketing Year 2023-24, entered into a contract with the government and contract letter has been executed between District Marketing Officer, District Janjgir- Champa i.e. respondent no. 6 on behalf of Chhattisgarh State Co-Operation 3 Association Limited as First party and the petitioner i.e. i.e. Second Party under Chhattisgarh Custom Milling Instructions of the Government, C.G. Government, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Ministry of Raipur Nava Raipur, under the instructions issued regarding custom milling of paddy procured in the year 2023-24.

4. As per the agreement, executed in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Government’s Custom Milling Instructions, the petitioner has uplifted FCI Arwa- 17160, Naan Arwa-7200) and as per contract agreement clause between the parties the petitioner has to deposit 67% of custom milled rice of Arwa of FCI & Naan and with regard to which PDC cheques and Bank guarantee has already been taken from the petitioner.

5. The petitioner has already started depositing/submitting the custom milling rice day by day and out of total paddy, he has to deposit

11612.172 Quintal of CMR of FCI Arwa (out of which 10421.30 Qunitals of CMR FCI has already been deposited) and 4872.24 CMR of NAN Arwa, which has been completely deposited by the petitioner and for remaining balance of Custom Milled Rice (CMR) 1190.79 Quintals, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the balance CMR.

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Respondent No.3 is not accepting the balance of 1190.79 Qunitals of the petitioner even after the order of this Court passed in WPC No.1449/2025 dated 30/04/2025 and the Respondent No.6 has written a letter to the petitioner with regard to extension of time from 10/05/2025 to 30/06/2025 for depositing of balance CMR of 2023-24 and on receiving the said letter 4 the petitioner has tried to deposit the balance of 1190.79 but has failed to do the same for the reason that the online portal of the petitioner was locked and has not been opened even after order of this Court and he has also preferred a representation but no decision has been taken.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that due to arbitrary and wrongful approach of the respondents, the petitioner has been debarred from depositing the balance of 1190.79 Quintals of Custom Milled Rice of the year 2023-24. She would next contend that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the remaining balance Custom milled rice from his end but the concerned respondent is not accepting the balance of CMR of 1190.79 Quintals of Kharif year 2023-24 even after their own notifications and the last date for depositing the CMR has now been extended for depositing CMR of 2023-24 vide notification dated 29.05.2025 from 10.05.2025 to 30.06.2025. Therefore, it is prayed that the respondents be directed to open the online portal and Miller Id of the petitioner and accept the balance of CMR of 1190.79 Quintals of Kharif year 2023-24 in light of the notification dated 29.05.2025.

8. Learned counsel for the Markfed submits that the Markfed functions purely as a facilitator and intermediary in the execution of custom milling agreements. It operates strictly in accordance with the directions issued from time to time by the Central Government, the State Government, and the Food Corporation of India (FCI). Markfed has no independent authority to take policy decisions or deviate from binding directives. They would further submit that in case of any dispute the petitioner may take recourse to the arbitration clause as provided in the 5 agreement.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

10.Clause 5.1 of the agreement states as under: 5-1- df.Mdk dz- 3-1 esa fofgr vikktZu dsUnz@laxzg.k dsUnz ls /kku mBkus gsrq i{k dzekad 02 }kjk dEI;wVj ds ek/;e ls fMyhojh vkMZj ¼Mh-vks-½ gsrq vkosnu djsxkA ftl i{k dzekad 01 dh vksj ls lacaf/kr jktLo ftys ds ftyk foi.ku vf/kdjh ds }kjk vuqeksfnr dj tkjh fd;k tkosxk] tks vgLrkarj.kh gksxkA foHkkxh; lkQVos;j vuqlkj miktZu dsUnz@laxzg.k dsUnz }kjk Mh-vks- dk lR;kiu fd, tkus ds mijkar tkjh fd;s x;s fMyhojh ds vuqlkj gh i{k dzekad 02 dks lacaf/kr miktZu dsUnz@laxzg.k dsUnz ls fMyhojh vkMZj tkjh gksus dh frfFk ls 10 fnol ds vUbnj Mh-vks- esa mYysf[kr lEiw.kZ /kku dk ifjnku izkIr djus ds fy;s ck?; gSA ;fn i{k dzekad 02 }kjk 10 fnol ds Hkhrj /kku dk mBko ugha rks fu;ekuqlkj n.M vf/kjksifr fd;k tkosxkA fo”ks”k ifjfLFkfr;ksa es xq.k nks”k ds vk/kkj ij ijh{k.k mijkar i{k dzekad 02 dks vFkZn.M esa NwV iznku djus dk vf/kdkj izca/k lapkyd ekdZQsM dks gksxkA

11.Clause 14.1 of the agreement states as under: 14-1 bl lafonk djh fdlh Hkh dafMdk ls lacaf?kr fookn mRuUu gksus dh fLFkfr esa mHk;i{kksa }kjk fookn ds lkSgknZiw.kZ lek/kku ds fy, ftyk dysDVj dks vH;kosnu izLrqr fd;k tk ldsxkA ftyk dysDVj }kjk mDr vH;kosnu esa fd;k x;k fu.kZ; mHk;i{kksa dks ekU; gksxkA

12.Clause 15.1 and 15.2 of the agreement states as under: 15-1 vuqc/k dh dafMdk 14-1 ds varxZr lacaf/kr ftyk dysDVj }kjk fd;s x;s fu.kZ; ds fo:) mHk;i{kksa }kjk fookn ds fu.kZ; gsrq 60 fnol ds Hkhrj vkchVs’ku gsrq N-x- e/;L;re vf/kdj.k jk;iqj ¼N-x-½ ds le{k vkosnu izLrqr fd;k tk ldsxk] ftldk fu.kZ; vafre gksxk tks vHk;i{kksa dks ekU; gksxkA 15-2 vkchZVªs’ku esa fd;s x;s fu.kZ; ls ;fn mHk; i{k esa ls dksbZ vlarq”V gksrk gS] rks og vU; fof/kd izko/kkuksa dk mi;ksx dj ldsxkA

13. The petitioner claims that she is ready and willing for depositing the remaining balance Custom milled rice from his end but the concerned respondent is not accepting the balance of CMR of 1190.79 Quintals of Kharif year 2023-24 despite the fact that the last date for depositing the CMR of 2023-24 has been extended.

14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Goyal Rice Industries Vs. State of Punjab (2016) SCC Online P&H 9853 is apt in underscoring 6 the principle that disputes under such agreements are better resolved through arbitration and has held as under: “9. It is argued by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners are claiming paddy out of release order from outside his district. It is further argued that the petitioner has a right of Arbitration as per the Policy, which may be invoked in order to decide the interpretation of the provisions of the Policy of KMS 2015-16 on the basis of which the petitioners may set up their claim for the alleged losses, if any. 10.1 I have heard learned counsel for the parties in detail and also perused the available record. Once, it is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioner has right of seeking arbitration, it would be in the interest of parties to avail the remedy, which is so provided in clause 19 of Custom Milling Policy of 2015-16, which read as under: “All the disputes and differences arising out of or in any manner touching or concerning the agreement whatsoever shall be reered to the sole arbitration of the Managing Director of the concerned agency or any person appointed y him in this behalf. There will be no objection to any such appointment that the person appointed is or was an employee of the Food and Supplies Department, Punjab or the concerned agency or that he had to deal with the matter to which the contract relates and that in the course of his duties such an employee of the Food and Supplies Department, Punjab or the concerned agency had expressed views on all or any of the matter in dispute or difference. The award of such arbitration shall be final and binding on the parties to this contract. It is a term of this contract that in the event of the Arbitrator being transferred or vacating his office or being unable to act for any reason, the Managing Director concerned at the time of such transfer, vacation of office, death or inability shall appoint another person to act as Arbitrator. Such a person shall be entitled to proceed with reference from and the state where it was left by his predecessor. Provided that any demand for arbitration in respect of any claim(s)/dispute between both the parties, under the contract shall be in writing and made within one year of the date of completion or expiry of the period of 7 contract. If the demand is not made within the period, the claim(s) of the Miller shall be deemed to have been waived off and the agency shall be released of all liabilities under the contract in respect of these claims. The cost for and in connection with arbitration shall be the discretion of the arbitrator who may make suitable orders in his award. Subject as aforesaid, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory re-enactment on modifications thereof shall apply to the arbitration provided under this clause. However, the cases of fraud, theft or misappropriation etc. on the part of the miller are not covered under this clause and in such cases legal proceedings as deemed fit shall be initiated by the agency against the miller as well as against the sureties.”

11. In view of the aforesaid, the parties are relegated to the remedy of arbitration and hence the present petitions are hereby disposed of accordingly.”

15. From the above decision in similar circumstances it has been held that when contractual remedy by way of arbitration is available and the dispute pertains to interpretation of policy or contract terms, parties must avail such remedy rather than invoking the writ jurisdiction. It is ordered accordingly.

16. In view of the above, this Court does not find any good ground to grant the reliefs as prayed for in this writ petition and the same does not call for interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

17. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. Ashu Judge (Arvind Kumar Verma)