Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:33196 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3670 of 2025 1 - M/s Shree Krishna Food And Rice, Village- Pacheda, Tahsil - Arang, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh Through Its Authorised Sole Proprietor Mr. Avinay Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Ganesh Prasad Agrawal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o H.No. B-27, Phase-3, Capital City, Saddu, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, (Directorate Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection), Capitol Complex, Block-2, Iii Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. [email protected] 2 - Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited Through Its Managing Director, 880, Civil Lines, Raipur, Tahsil- Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Markeint Officer Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Department Of Food And Public Distribution, Ministry Of Consumer Affairs, Food And Public Distribution Department Of Food An Pd Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
Legal Reasoning
5 - Food Corporation Of India Through Its Managing Director, 16-20, Barakhamba Ln, Fire Brigade Lane, Barakhamba, New Delhi, Delhi 110001 6 - Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Through Its Managing Director, Hitvad Complex, Avanti Vihar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pin- 492006. 7 - Union Bank Of India Through Its Authorised Officer/ Branch Manager, Union Bank Of India Branch- Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rajkamal Singh through VC along with Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. 2 For Respondent No. 2 & : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate 3 For Respondent No. 4 For Respondent No. 5 : : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Advocate Mr. R.S. Patel along with Mr. Ashish Sahu, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 16/07/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present petition is heard finally. 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may please be kind enough in calling the entire records from the respondents pertaining to the data managed by the respondents in their Data Module and relevant communications. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may please be kind enough in directing the respondents No. 1-6 to arrange the Warehouse & allow for depositing the Custom Milled Rice, milled by petitioner Rice Mill under the subject custom Milling Agreements. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may please be kind enough in restraining the respondents from encashing the petitioners Bank Guarantees and in directing the respondents to receive the custom milled rice at the nearest depot within a suitable time frame. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may please be kind enough in directing the respondents to adhere and comply with the terms of the 3 subject custom milling agreements. 10.5 That, this Hon’ble Court may please be kind enough in granting any other relief, interest, compensation, damages and cost of petition.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Rice Mill under the custom milling policy of the government of Chhattisgarh entered into two custom milling agreements for milling of paddy procurement in the Khareef Marketing Year 2024-25 (hereinafter referred to as KMS 24-25). The custom milled rice (hereinafter referred to as the CMR) was to be delivered under the terms of the agreements to the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the FCI) in Central Pool of KMS 24-25 or C.G. State Civil Supplies Corporation (Nagarik Apurti Nigam) (hereinafter referred to as NAN) in C.G. state pool. As per the terms of the agreement the petitioner furnished the Bank Guarantees amounting to Rs. 6.8 Crores for lifting the Paddy for custom milling. Predominantly because the respondent no. 2 and 3 could not arrange the warehouses for depositing the CMR, therefore, the custom milling went through hurdles therefore, the CMR and remaining paddy remained stored in the petitioner’s Rice Mill as per prevailing rules. The respondent no. 1 through a departmental letter/circular dated 26th March, 2025 instructed all the concerned official in respect of the adjustments and deposits of the CMR. Accordingly the petitioner given its consent for depositing the CMR in the state pool of the C.G. State Civil Supplies Corporation in KMS 24-25 but the respondent no. 3 informed the petitioner that, since the name of petitioner’s Rice mill is shown in the Paddy/Rice shortage 4 list therefore, the interchange between FCI & NAN is locked (in the DMS) as such the remaining quantity could not be changed from FCI to NAN. The natural consequence of the delayed response of the respondent no. 3 is that, the sureties in the form of the Bank Guarantees furnished by the petitioner may be encashed at will by the respondents and the petiitoner may be termed defaulter for future rice milling agreements and will thus suffer serious financial losses those may result into collapse of his financial capacity leading to closure of petitioner’s rice mill that too only because of the wrong entry made by the Markfed in their Date Modules wrongly showing the shortage which was never reported in actual Physical Verification of the stock at petitioner’s Rice Mill. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents should not be permitted to encash the petitioner’s Bank Guarantees without any plausible reason that will hurt the special equities offered to the parties of the subject custom milling agreements and will ultimately cause irretrievable injustice/harm to the petitioner because the subject custom milling agreements doesn’t provide for such action as there is no performance defect on the part of petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2,3 and 6 contended that the last date of depositing of CMR was 05.07.2025 for the year 2023-2024 which has already been elapsed. The second contention made by the learned counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner in his petition has mentioned the paddy procurement custom milling agreement for the Kharif Marketing year 2024-25 which is totally wrong. The petition is 5 defective. He further contended that the agreement is for the year 2023- 24. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petition is not defective, it is just a clerical error. 6. Learned counsel for respondent no. 7 submits that Bank Guarantee which has been submitted by the petitioner has already been invoked. He would further submit that in case of any dispute the petitioner may take recourse to the arbitration clause as provided in the agreement. 7. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Clause 5.1 of the agreement states as under: "5-1- vikktZu [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] dsUnz ls fMyhojh vkMZj tkjh gksus dh frfFk ls 10 fnol ds vUbnj Mh-vs- esamYysf[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 ----------- 9. 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 10. 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 vkchVs’ku esa fd;s x;s fu.kZ; ls ;fn mHk; i{k esa ls dksbZ vlarq”V gksrk 6 gS] rks og vU; fof/kd izko/kkuksa dk mi;ksx dj ldsxkA 11.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.
Decision
12.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. 13.Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima