Petitioner must first place pending arbitration documents before MARKFED before seeking renewed judicial relief.

The Petitioner, a rice-milling firm, challenged the Recovery Order dated 16.09.2026 issued by the District Marketing Officer, directing it to deposit ₹1,16,01,525.17 within one week towards alleged recoveries arising under the Custom Milling Rice Agreement for Kharif Marketing Year 2023–24.

The order stated that, upon failure to deposit the amount, the Petitioner’s bank security, bank guarantee, FDR, or PDC could be forfeited or confiscated.

The Petitioner sought quashing of the recovery order and protection against coercive action until conclusion of arbitration proceedings pending before the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran.

During hearing, it was submitted that the Petitioner had not previously informed the concerned MARKFED authorities about the pending arbitration proceedings before approaching the High Court.

MARKFED submitted that, had the pendency of arbitration been brought to its notice, the authority might have considered the matter and the recovery notice might possibly not have been issued.

1. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to immediate judicial protection against the recovery order and proposed forfeiture of its securities without first placing the pendency of the arbitration proceedings before the concerned MARKFED authority?

2. Whether the writ petition should be adjudicated on merits or disposed of by permitting the Petitioner to approach the concerned MARKFED authority with documents evidencing the pending arbitration?

The Court applied the principle that a writ court may decline to adjudicate the merits of a grievance where the concerned administrative authority has not been apprised of material facts relevant to the impugned action, particularly where the authority may reconsider the matter upon receiving such information.

The Court also adopted the principle of judicial restraint by not expressing an opinion on the merits when an appropriate factual and administrative consideration remained available.

The Court noted that the Petitioner had approached it directly after receiving the recovery order without first informing MARKFED about the pending arbitration proceedings.

Since the pendency of arbitration could potentially affect the decision to initiate or continue recovery proceedings, the Court considered it appropriate to allow the concerned MARKFED authority to examine the issue in light of the relevant documents.

MARKFED itself acknowledged that, had the arbitration proceedings been disclosed, the recovery notice might not have been issued.

Accordingly, the Court refrained from examining the legality or merits of the recovery demand and directed the Petitioner to pursue the administrative remedy first.

The Petitioner was granted liberty to approach the concerned MARKFED authority and place on record documents proving the pendency of the arbitration proceedings.

The authority was directed to consider the matter in accordance with law.

If any grievance or urgency survived thereafter, the Petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh petition before the High Court.

No order as to costs was made.