Chattisgarh High Court
M/S S.K. Industries vs Union Of India on 30 April, 2026
Digitally signed
YOGESH by YOGESH
TIWARI
TIWARI Date: 2026.04.30
17:21:47 +0530
1
2026:CGHC:20164
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2124 of 2026
M/s S.K. Industries Through Its Proprietor Sachin Khandelwal S/o- Shri
Kishan Khandelwal, Aged 51 Year, R/o- Khasra No.394/1, 395/1,
Dhamda Road, Chikli, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Department Of Food And Public
Distribution, Ministry Of Consumer Affairs, Food And Public Distribution
Krishi Bhawan, Rafi Marg, Connaught Place, Block E, Connaught
Place, New Delhi, Delhi-110001
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of Food,
Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing
Federation Ltd. (Markfed), 6th Floor, Cbd Complex, Commercial Block
C Sector 21, Barauda-1, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492018.
4 - District Marketing Officer, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And
Consumer Protection, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.
2
5 - Food Corporation Of India, Through Its General Manager (Region),
Chhattisgarh Region, Regional And District Office- Vidhansabha Road,
Post- Pandri, Kapa, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Pin-492005
6 - Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Through Its
Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation
Limited, Raipur, Block -7, A, 2nd Floor, Office Complex, Sector 24, Atal
Nagarm Nava Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh.
7 - District Collector, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. S.S. Choubey, Government Advocate For Respondents No.3 : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate and 4 For Respondent No.5 : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 30.04.2026
1. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner assails the arbitrary inaction and apathy on the part of the respondents, particularly the Food Corporation of India (FCI), in failing to allot confirmed stacks and provide essential logistical support for deposit of Custom Milled Rice (CMR) under the Kharif Marketing Season 2024-25, despite valid subsisting agreements. It is contended that due to the respondents' failure in ensuring timely stack allotment, labour availability and unloading facilities, the petitioner has been rendered incapable of performing its 3 contractual obligations, and is now being exposed to coercive consequences, including forfeiture of bank guarantees, even though the delay is wholly attributable to the respondents. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :-
"a. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents Food Cooperation of India to allot stacks to the Petitioner expeditiously and without delay, and to ensure timely clearance and approval of lots so as to facilitate uninterrupted delivery of CMR;
b. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to concerned respondents to grant reasonable extension of time for completion of delivery of CMR beyond 30.04.2026;
c. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to restrain the Respondents from taking any coercive steps against the Petitioner;
d. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to complete delivery of Custom Milled Rice (CMR) for Kharif Marketing Season 2024-25 without imposing any penal consequences, considering the administrative and systemic constraints;
e. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents to ensure smooth and timely acceptance of rice by: providing adequate labour at depots, ensuring timely unloading of trucks, allocating appropriate depots, ensuring proper stack allocation and clearance mechanisms.4
f. Pass any other order(s), direction(s), or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner, as in duty bound, shall ever pray."
2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner is a rice miller engaged in custom milling of paddy under the Kharif Marketing Season (KMS) 2024-25 pursuant to agreements executed with the District Marketing Officer, Durg. In furtherance thereof, the petitioner entered into three Custom Milling Agreements dated 09.12.2024 and 18.12.2024 for specified lot numbers, requiring milling of paddy and delivery of Custom Milled Rice (CMR) to designated agencies including the Food Corporation of India (FCI) within the stipulated period, which was subsequently extended by the Government of India up to 30.04.2026.
3. During the subsistence of the said period, multiple administrative and logistical constraints arose at the level of the respondent authorities, including non-availability of labour at FCI depots, delay in unloading of trucks, improper depot allocation with ongoing rack operations, delay in allotment of stacks, shortage and subsequent discontinuation of Fortified Rice Kernels (FRK), non-availability of gunny bags, and recurring technical issues in the online systems governing allocation and delivery. Various communications issued by FCI, Markfed and the District 5 Marketing Officer acknowledge these constraints and the resulting disruption in the CMR delivery process.
4. Despite repeated representations by the petitioner and the Rice Mill Association highlighting these issues, no effective remedial measures were undertaken. As a consequence, substantial quantity of CMR remains to be delivered, though the petitioner has already partially complied with its obligations. The delay in performance is attributable to systemic and administrative deficiencies on the part of the respondents, while the petitioner continues to face the threat of coercive action and penal consequences arising out of such delay.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bona fide rice miller who has been diligently discharging its obligations under the Custom Milling Agreements executed for the Kharif Marketing Season 2024-25, and has at all times remained ready and willing to perform its contractual duties. It is contended that the petitioner has already milled substantial quantities of paddy and has made continuous efforts to deliver Custom Milled Rice (CMR) to the designated agencies, including the Food Corporation of India (FCI). However, despite such readiness, the petitioner has been prevented from completing delivery within the stipulated period on account of circumstances entirely beyond its control and attributable solely to the respondents. 6
6. It is further submitted that the entire mechanism of CMR delivery is controlled and regulated by the respondent authorities, and the petitioner is wholly dependent upon them for allocation of stacks, availability of labour, unloading facilities, supply of gunny bags, and proper functioning of the online systems governing booking and allotment. Learned counsel submits that there has been consistent and inordinate delay in allotment of stacks, as is evident from the official TEC reports maintained by the respondents themselves, which clearly reflect a significant gap between booking and actual allotment. It is contended that even when trucks were dispatched to the designated depots, the same remained stranded for several days due to non-availability of hamals and ongoing rack operations, resulting in severe congestion and disruption of the delivery chain.
7. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent authorities themselves have acknowledged these systemic deficiencies through various official communications. It is pointed out that FCI, vide communication dated 23.03.2026, admitted acute shortage of labour affecting unloading and stacking operations; the District Marketing Officer, Durg, also recorded that substantial quantities of rice remained undelivered due to labour shortage and rack movement; and the State agency, Markfed, acknowledged non- availability of Fortified Rice Kernels (FRK), which led to disruption in production of fortified rice. It is submitted that pursuant to directions issued by the Government of India discontinuing 7 fortified rice supply, and subsequent relaxation granted by the State Government permitting conversion into normal rice, the entire operational framework underwent a change, which further impacted the petitioner's ability to perform within time.
8. It is also contended that despite repeated representations submitted by the petitioner and the Rice Mill Association highlighting issues such as delay in unloading, improper depot allocation, shortage of labour, and non-availability of FRK, no effective steps were taken by the respondents to resolve these bottlenecks. On the contrary, the respondents have continued to threaten coercive action, including forfeiture of security deposit, blacklisting, and denial of participation in future procurement seasons, which would have severe civil and financial consequences for the petitioner.
9. Learned counsel submits that the delay in delivery is not attributable to any negligence or default on part of the petitioner, but is the direct consequence of administrative inefficiency and systemic failure on part of the respondents. It is argued that the respondents cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong and penalize the petitioner for non-performance which has been rendered impossible due to factors beyond its control. It is further submitted that the petitioner is also suffering additional losses on account of prolonged storage of milled rice, deterioration in quality, repeated transportation, detention of trucks, and escalating operational costs.
8
10. On these premises, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondents in proceeding against the petitioner and exposing it to coercive consequences is wholly arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It is thus prayed that appropriate relief be granted by this Court by extending the time for delivery, directing the respondents to remove logistical bottlenecks, and restraining them from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner.
11. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the State authorities have been continuously monitoring the implementation of the Kharif Marketing Season 2024-25 scheme and have taken all possible steps to facilitate smooth procurement and delivery of CMR. It is contended that necessary policy decisions, including extension of timeline up to 30.04.2026 and issuance of directions to address issues relating to fortified rice, have already been taken at the Government level. Learned State counsel submits that regular review meetings have been conducted and appropriate instructions issued to the concerned agencies to streamline operations, and therefore, no arbitrariness can be attributed to the State. It is further submitted that the petitioner is also under a contractual obligation to complete delivery within the stipulated period and cannot seek to shift the entire burden upon the respondents.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the Marketing Federation (Markfed) submits that the Federation has been acting strictly in 9 accordance with the directions issued by the Government of India and the State Government from time to time. It is contended that the issue relating to non-availability of Fortified Rice Kernels (FRK) was a nationwide constraint arising due to policy changes, and the Federation has already taken corrective measures by permitting inter-group and inter-district allocation and by supporting conversion of fortified rice obligations into normal rice delivery. It is submitted that all possible efforts have been made to ensure supply chain continuity and coordination between millers and procurement agencies, and any residual delay cannot be attributed solely to the Federation.
13. Learned counsel appearing for the Food Corporation of India (FCI) submits that the FCI has been making all reasonable efforts to accept CMR in accordance with the prescribed procedure and available infrastructure. It is contended that depot operations involve multiple logistical considerations, including rack movement, storage capacity, and handling arrangements, which are being managed in a dynamic and constrained environment. Learned counsel submits that while there may have been temporary operational difficulties, the same do not absolve the petitioner of its contractual obligations. It is further submitted that adequate opportunities have been provided to the petitioner for delivery, and necessary arrangements are being made to ensure smooth functioning; therefore, no direction, as sought, is warranted against FCI.
10
14. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials on record.
15. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the last date for deposit/acceptance of Custom Milled Rice is today itself up to 5:00 PM, and in view of the subsisting operational bottlenecks and administrative constraints, the petitioner is likely to suffer irreversible prejudice. It is, therefore, prayed that this Court be issued appropriate directions to the respondents to permit the petitioner to deposit the Custom Milled Rice beyond the stipulated time and to ensure immediate allotment of stacks, availability of labour and unhindered unloading facilities, so that the petitioner is not subjected to coercive action for circumstances beyond its control.
16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, the material placed on record, and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the petitioner has been continuously ready and willing to discharge its obligations under the Custom Milling Agreements for the Kharif Marketing Season 2024-25. The record further reflects that substantial quantity of Custom Milled Rice (CMR) has already been prepared and is presently lying at the petitioner's rice mill, and the delay in its deposit at the designated depots is primarily attributable to systemic and administrative constraints at the level of the respondent authorities, including delay in allotment of stacks, non-availability of labour, and other logistical impediments, 11 which have also been acknowledged in various official communications.
17. It is also not in dispute that the last date for deposit/acceptance of CMR is today i.e., up to 5:00 PM, and in the absence of appropriate directions, the petitioner would suffer grave and irreparable prejudice, despite having fulfilled its part of the obligation to the extent possible. At the same time, this Court is conscious of the fact that the respondents are required to act within the framework of the governing policy and guidelines. Therefore, in order to balance the equities and ensure that no party suffers on account of circumstances beyond its control, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with suitable directions.
18. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondents shall permit the petitioner to deposit the Custom Milled Rice, which has already been milled and is available at the petitioner's premises, within the stipulated time of 5:00 PM today, and shall not deny acceptance of such CMR if the same is reached to the FCI Godown till 5:00 PM subject to in conformity with the prescribed quality standards and contractual requirements.
19. It is further directed that the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and other concerned authorities shall consider the petitioner's case in a fair and pragmatic manner and take all necessary steps to 12 facilitate acceptance and collection of the Custom Milled Rice from the petitioner, in accordance with law and the applicable policy. The respondents shall also ensure that requisite logistical support, including allotment of stacks, availability of labour, and proper unloading arrangements, is extended so as to enable smooth and timely acceptance of the petitioner's CMR.
20. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of any other claim or dispute between the parties, and the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, subject to the observations made hereinabove.
21. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
22. There shall be no order as to costs.
23. Certified copy today.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Yogesh