Allowed

Ap State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Sri Rajyalakshmi Raw and Boiled Rice Mill

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Aug 2019WA/1237/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Acting Chief Justice allowed the intra-court writ appeal against an interim order directing the appellant Corporation to pay Rs.9,94,938/- with interest to the petitioner. The high court set aside the order for lack of opportunity to file a counter-affidavit and remanded the matter back to the single judge for full hearing and disposal.

What did the court decide?

Interim order dated 28.08.2018 directing payment of Rs.9,94,938/- with interest set aside; matter remanded back to the learned single judge.

Ap State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶3

WRIT APPEAL No.1237 of 2018

¶4

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice)

¶5

This intra-court appeal, under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, came to be filed assailing the order dated 28.08.2018 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.28425 of 2018. The said writ petition was filed by the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner challenging the notice dated 20.12.2017 issued by the 3^rd respondent herein, wherein a demand of Rs.4,24,033/- was made.

¶6

By the order impugned, the learned single Judge issued the following directions:

¶7

“It is not in dispute that the petitioner is entitled to be paid a sum of Rs.14,94,938/- by the 3^rd respondent-Corporation towards milling charges, driage charges, custody and maintenance, market fee, etc., for 2013-14 and 2014-15.

¶8

Petitioner contends that for the delayed delivery of 258 MTs of paddy, 3^rd respondent has wrongly calculated late delivery quantity as 428.209 MTs and levied cost @ Rs.14,000/- per MT with 1 ½ times penalty thereon apart from interest @14% P.A., and this is arbitrary and illegal, particularly when the quantity of paddy included in the said calculation by the 3^rd respondent covered the paddy delivered after 30.09.2015, for which there is no agreement entitling the Corporation to levy penalty or interest @ 14% per annum.

¶9

It is not disputed in the counter affidavit filed by 3^rd respondent that there is no agreement entered into by the 3^rd respondent with the petitioner after 30.09.2015.

¶10

Therefore, for the paddy delivered without agreement post 01.10.2015 and for the delay in delivery of CMR rice from such paddy, there cannot be either penalty or demand for interest in the absence of any agreement.

¶11

Therefore, pending Writ Petition, tentatively a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- be with-hold by the 3^rd respondent from the amounts payable to the petitioner

¶12

¶13

for 2013-14 and 2014-15 of Rs.14,94,938/- and balance of Rs.9,94,938/- with interest @9% per annum be paid by the 3^rd respondent to the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

¶14

As stated above, by interim order impugned in this appeal, the learned single Judge directed the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.9,94,938/- with interest @9% per annum to the 1^st respondent herein, within a period of three weeks, there-from, by withholding a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the amounts payable to the 1^st respondent herein for 2013-14 and 2014-15, at the initial stage itself. It is pleaded that, without giving an opportunity to the appellant herein to file counter-affidavit, the order came to be passed, which fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent.

¶15

Having regard to the above, the writ appeal is allowed setting aside the order dated 28.08.2018 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.28245 of 2018, directing the appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.9,94,938/- with interest @ 9% per annum. The matter is remanded back to the learned single Judge for hearing and disposal of the writ petition itself, at an early date. No order as to costs.

¶16

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶17

______________________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ACJ

¶18

__________________________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J

¶19

August 01, 2019 MRR

Ap State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Sri Rajyalakshmi Raw and Boiled Rice Mill

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ap State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Sri Rajyalakshmi Raw and Boiled Rice Mill

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

People Unnity for Civil Liberties and Human Rights Vs the State of Ap

C. Ramanna, Vs M. Somasekhar

Somurouthu Satyanarayana Vs The Govt Of A.P Rep By Its Secretary

Raptad Rahul Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mudunuri Savithri Vs The Asst. Commissioner (Endowments)

V Suresh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh