Vinod Lalwani (Partner M/S - S.S. Rice Mill)… — Writ and Judicial Review

¶1

1

¶2

YOGESH Digitally signed byYOGESH TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2026.07.0918:21:48 +0530

CGHC010171092026

2026:CGHC:28520

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPC No. 2181 of 2026

¶8

Vinod Lalwani (Partner M/s - S.S. Rice Mill) S/o Rajkumar Lalwani Aged About 50 Years R/o House No. 418/1 Sadar Bazar, Near Jain Mandir, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

2 - Managing Director- Chhattisgarh State Market Federation Maryadit Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

3 - District Marketing Officer Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶14

4 - The Collector (Food Department) Rajnandgaon, DistrictRajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶17

For Petitioner	: Mr. B.P. Singh and Mr. Roshan Singh Lamba, Advocates
For State/Respondents No.1 and 4	: Mr. Anand Dadariya, Deputy Advocate General
For Respondents No.2 and 3	: Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate

¶18

2

¶19

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

09.07.2026

¶22

1. By filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the show cause notices dated 31.03.2026 and 13.04.2026 issued by respondent No.4 and the consequential action of blacklisting the petitioner from accessing the online Custom Milling portal and from entering into a Custom Milling Agreement for the Kharif Marketing Season (‘KMS’) 202526. The petitioner has also sought a direction to the respondent authorities to permit him to register and enter into the Custom Milling Agreement for KMS 2025-26 in accordance with the Notification dated 12.02.2026 issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :-

¶23

“A. Quashing and setting aside the impugned Show Cause Notice and the order of blacklisting of the Petitioner by the Respondents, as being illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the Government Notification dated 12.02.2026.

¶24

B. Issue Direction or order, directing the Respondents to forthwith open/unblock the online portal for the Petitioner and allow the Petitioner to enter into a Custom Milling Agreement for Kharif Marketing Year 2025-26 in accordance with the Government Notification dated 12.02.2026.

¶25

3

¶26

C. Grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. ”

¶27

2. The brief facts, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner is a partner of M/s S.S. Rice Mill and is engaged in the business of custom milling under the scheme framed by the Government of Chhattisgarh. For the Kharif Marketing Season 2024-25, the petitioner entered into a Custom Milling Agreement with the respondent authorities for lifting 19,577 quintals of paddy. It is stated that after processing the said paddy, the petitioner has already deposited approximately 31-32% of the required Custom Milled Rice (‘CMR’). It is further the case of the petitioner that the Government of Chhattisgarh issued a Notification dated 12.02.2026 directing the concerned authorities to permit those millers to register for the Kharif Marketing Season 2025-26 who had already deposited more than 30% of the Custom Milled Rice for KMS 2024-25. According to the petitioner, having deposited more than 30% of the CMR, he fulfilled the eligibility condition prescribed under the said notification and was therefore entitled to participate in the Custom Milling process for KMS 2025-26. The petitioner submits that despite fulfillment of the aforesaid condition, the respondent authorities did not permit him to access the online portal for registration and instead issued show cause notices dated 31.03.2026 and 13.04.2026 calling upon him to deposit the remaining quantity of CMR. It is further submitted that the petitioner had already submitted representations dated

¶28

4

¶29

16.03.2026 and 25.03.2026 before the concerned authorities requesting permission to enter into the Custom Milling Agreement for KMS 2025-26 in terms of the Notification dated 12.02.2026, but no decision was taken thereupon.

¶30

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in preventing the petitioner from entering into the Custom Milling Agreement and blacklisting him is wholly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the Government's own Notification dated 12.02.2026. It is submitted that the said notification specifically provides that those millers who have deposited more than 30% of the CMR for KMS 2024-25 shall be permitted to register for KMS 2025-26 and there is no further condition imposed therein requiring deposit of the entire quantity of CMR before permitting registration. He further submits that the petitioner has already complied with the eligibility criteria prescribed by the Government by depositing approximately 31% of the CMR and is ready and willing to deposit the remaining quantity within the prescribed period. It is contended that the respondent authorities, after acknowledging the deposit made by the petitioner, could not have proceeded to blacklist him or deny access to the online portal. Such action is self-contradictory and contrary to the principles of fairness and reasonableness. He also submits that the respondents are indirectly compelling the petitioner to withdraw Contempt Petition No.1215/2025 pending before this Court, which arose out of WPC No.2470/2025, in order

¶31

5

¶32

to permit him to participate in the KMS 2025-26 process. It is argued that such action amounts to arbitrary exercise of power and infringes the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that in the earlier proceedings in WPC No.2470/2025, this Court had noticed the closure of the online portal as an administrative failure and had directed appropriate steps to be taken. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be penalized for circumstances which were beyond his control and attributable to the respondent authorities themselves.

¶33

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the grievance raised by the petitioner involves disputed questions of fact regarding the actual quantity of CMR deposited by him and the date on which such deposit was made. It is submitted that the eligibility condition under the Notification dated 12.02.2026 has to be examined by the competent authority after verifying the records.

¶34

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that as per the records maintained by the Department, the petitioner had not deposited 30% of the required quantity of CMR as on the relevant date, i.e., 12.02.2026, and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the said notification. It is submitted that the issue raised by the petitioner requires factual adjudication and the appropriate remedy available to him is to approach the competent departmental authorities and thereafter

¶35

6

¶36

the Chhattisgarh Arbitration Tribunal, if required, in accordance with the terms of the agreement.

¶37

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and from the pleadings on record, it is apparent that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent authorities essentially relates to the question as to whether the petitioner had deposited the requisite quantity of CMR so as to avail the benefit of the Notification dated 12.02.2026 issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh. While the petitioner claims that he had already deposited more than 30% of the CMR and was therefore eligible for entering into the Custom Milling Agreement for KMS 2025-26, the respondent authorities dispute the said factual assertion and contend that the requisite quantity had not been deposited as on the relevant date.

¶38

7. The aforesaid controversy involves verification of factual aspects relating to the quantity of CMR deposited, the date of such deposit and compliance with the terms and conditions of the Custom Milling Agreement. Such disputed questions are required to be examined by the competent authority under the contractual and statutory mechanism provided for resolution of such disputes.

¶39

8. This Court also finds that the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.868/2025 decided on 04.12.2025 has dealt with similar issues and has recognized the availability of the statutory mechanism for adjudication of disputes arising out of Custom Milling Agreements.

¶40

7

¶41

9. In view of the aforesaid position, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims raised by the parties, the petitioner is relegated to avail the appropriate remedy before the competent authority.

¶42

10. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to approach the concerned District Collector raising his grievance along with all relevant documents within a period of 10 days from today. The District Collector shall consider and decide the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.

¶43

11. It is further directed that for a period of 10 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned notices dated 31.03.2026 and 13.04.2026.

¶44

12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶47

Yogesh

Vinod Lalwani (Partner M/S - S.S. Rice Mill) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Lalwani (Partner M/S - S.S. Rice Mill) v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Shri Hanuman Travels Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rupesh Kumar Kaushik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anil Udasi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjeev Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Krishna Kumar Lahari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ma Mahila Self Help Group Deviganj Vs State of Chhattisgarh