- )- IN THE HIQH COURT'OF CHHATTISQARH BILASPUR '^ WP No.^0^ / 2006 Petitioner ./ \^y...-" ^%^/" 'Z/^T .•••''' A^^- /^(^ c'yv:y ^9- o' t>r Respondent SINGLE BENCH - M/s. Sohanlal Munshilal Proprietorship Concern By Proprietor Premnarayan Agrawal, Age 61 S/o Late Munshflal Agrawal, R/o Rathore Chowk, Ramsagarpara Raipur (CG) VERSUS 1. Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketmg Federation Ltd. By Managing Director, Head Office, Raipur CG 2. District Marketing Officer CG State Co-Op Marketing Federation Ltd. Raipur (CG) ^ PETITION U/ART. 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OP INDIA vs^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SingleBench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra IVIohan Shrivastava, J. Writ Petition No.3077 of 2006 Petitioner Respondents M/s Sohanlal Munshilal Versus Chhattisgarh State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited. (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Present: - Shri Raja Sharma, counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Shailendra Shukla, counsel for respondents. ORALORDER (Passedon 18-04-2011) By this petition, the petitioner has called in question the correctness and validity of letter dated 13-06-2006 (Annexure P-1) issued by the District Marketing Officer, Chhattisgarh State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, Raipur, (In short "Marketing Federation"), by which, the respondents have required the petitioner to make payment of the cost of Gunny Bags and lift the same. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the respondent authorities in directing the petitioner to pay the cost of Gunny Bags and lift the same is clearly arbitrary and is in utter violation of the dause-20 of the agreement entered into between the parties. Learned counsel submits that in the matter of custom milling, the petitioner, after custom milling, had delivered rice in the Gunny Bags, which were accepted by the respondents. He submits that once the acceptance has taken place, clause-20 of the agreement does not come to the aid of the respondents to compel the petitioner to accept the Gunny Bags and recover cost of those Gunny Bags. He submits that the said clause could be ^ ---/ v -2- invoked only on the instructions to be given by the Marketing Federation, whereas in the present case, there were no instructions by the Marketing Federation, and therefore, under any cireumstance, in view of the acceptance of Gunny Bags, the respondents could not have insisted the petitioner to collect Gunny Bags and to deduct any amount towards the cost of those Gunny Bags from the cost of custom milling payable to the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, tearned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has been raising a dispute, which involves enquiry into the disputed questions of fact. He further submits that whether in the present case, the respondents have violated clause-20 of the agreement entered into between the parties, itself is a matter of enquiry involving disputed questions of fact, and further that the clause-28 ofthe agreement stipulates that in the event of any dispute, the dispute shall be referred for arbitration to the Principal Secretary/Secretary, State of Chhattisgarh, Department of Food, Cjvil Supplies and Consumer Protection. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is based on the action of the respondents in directing the petitioner to lift the Gunny Bags and informing the petitioner regarding deduction of the cost of the Gunny Bags from the amount of the Custom milling payable to the petitioner. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that such a direction is in breach of the provisions contained in clause-20 of the agreement, is based on a factual submission that the respondents had, in fact, accepted the Gunny Bags and that the Marketing Federation had not given any such instruction with regard to return of Gunny Bags and deduction ofthe cost ofthe Gunny Bags. These are disputed questions offact, which cannot be gone into in the writ petition, more so, when this is not an admitted position. In the petition, 1 do not find any specific averment that the ^san- •3 - respondents had accepted the Gunny Bags or that they could not invoke clause- 20 of the agreement, in the absence of any instruction from the Marketing Federation. The respojidents' averment seems to be that the respondents are '••^ entitled to put such a condition of lifting the Gunny Bags and deduct the cost of Gunny Bags from the cost of milling payable to the petitioner. 5. From a perusal of clause 20 of the agreement, it appears that such an option could be exercised by the respondents. Whether they are justified in invoking that clause and whether it has amounted to breach of the conditions of the agreement, is a matter, which requires enquiry into disputed questions of fact. Therefore, under these circumstances, even though, the respondents are "state" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the matter needs to be enquired only through the ordinary remedy which is available to the petitioner in terms of clause 28and or clause 29 of the agreement between the parties. 1 do not find any extra-ordinary reason to interfere in the matter and to adjudicate upon such a factual dispute between the parties invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, this petition is finally disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner to work out remedy as may be available to him under the law in terms of the provision contained in the agreement between the parties relating to adjudication oftheir dispute through arbitration, approach to various Courts etc. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not commented upon the merits or demerits of the claim of the petitioner, and it will be open for the petitioner to raise all factual and legal grounds available to him including those which have been taken in the petition. No orders as to cost. Tumane Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge