Chhattisgarh High Court
WPC/4906/2026 of PRATEEK AGRO INDUSTRIES Vs MANAGING DIRECTOR on 25 September 2026
2026:CGHC:41863 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4906 of 2026 Prateek Agro Industries Through Proprietor - Shivendra Singh, S/o Late Shri N.K. Rai, Aged 67 Years, R/o Village Raka, Post Murmunda, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 -
CGHC010372782026
2026:CGHC:41863
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4906 of 2026
Prateek Agro Industries Through Proprietor - Shivendra Singh, S/o Late Shri N.K. Rai, Aged 67 Years, R/o Village Raka, Post Murmunda, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Market Federation Maryadit, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. 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, Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 4 - Finance Controller State Market Federation Maryadit, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner
:
Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate
For State/Respondent No.2 :
Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. Govt. Advocate
For Markfed/Respondents
No. 1, 3 and 4
:
Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 26.09.2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
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 ₹1,16,01,525.17 towards alleged recovery within one week, failing which the amount is 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. 1,16,01,525.17 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 has directly approached this Court without first informing the concerned MARKFED authorities regarding the pendency of the arbitration proceedings.
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, such 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. The concerned MARKFED authority shall consider the same in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 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 direction, the present petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge Yogesh