Ramtej Agro Products Vs a P State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited

RAMTEJ AGRO PRODUCTS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SEETHARAM PHANI TEJA, R/O D.NO.7-111, VIJAYAWADA ROAD, HANUMAN JUNCTION, BAPULAPADU, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶13

...PETITIONER

¶14

AND

¶15

A P STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, ASHOK NAGAR, BANDAR ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT 520 007

¶16

DISTRICT CIVIL SUPPLIES MANAGER, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT-521 001

¶17

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BENZ CIRCLE BRANCH VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT - 520010

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not accepting the custom milled rice sent by the petitioner herein and the

¶20

2

¶21

action of the 2nd Respondent in addressing letter No. BG Forfeit (1)/KMS 2025-26 dated 01-07-2026 to the 3rd Respondent seeking to forfeit the bank gurantee is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to supply custom milled rice without encashing the bank guarantee and pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the Respondents to accept the custom milled rice(CMR) supplied by the petitioner and pass

¶24

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the letter No. BG Forfeit (1)/KMS 2025-26 dated 01-072026 issued by the 2nd Respondent to the 3rd Respondent and pass

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶27

1.ADAPA RAMYA SAHITHI NAIDU

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶30

The Court made the following:

¶31

3

¶32

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO: 17726/2026

¶34

ORDER:-

¶35

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India

¶36

seeking the following reliefs:-

¶37

“to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not accepting the custom milled rice sent by the petitioner herein and the action of the 2^nd Respondent in addressing letter No.BG Forfeit (1)/KMS 2025-26 dated 01.07.2026 to the 3^rd respondent seeking to forfeit the bank guarantee is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to supply custom milled rice without encashing the bank guarantee and pass such other order or orders….”

¶38

The case of the petitioner herein is that, the petitioner is a registered

¶39

rice miller carrying on business under the name and style of Sri Ramtej Agro Products. The petitioner entered into an agreement with A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (APSCSCL) for supply of Custom Milled Rice (CMR) for the Kharif year 2025–2026. According to the petitioner, CMR would be supplied based on the availability of paddy. Initially the quantity which was sought to be delivered by the petitioner was delivered and handed over to the

¶40

1^st respondent. However, certain consignments were returned by the 1^st respondent on the ground the said consignment was not in conformity with the specifications of the custom milled rice that was sought to be delivered. After

¶41

reprocessing the said consignment, the petitioner tried to deliver the consignment. However, due to sudden rains the said consignment was got delayed. While things stood thus, the 2^nd respondent issued various notices

¶42

4

¶43

directing the petitioner to deliver the custom milled rice. Finally on 16.06.2026, the respondents issued notice directing the petitioner to deliver the custom milled rice on or before 20.06.2026, failing which, the bank guarantee would be forfeited. After receipt of the said notice, the petitioner appeared before the 2^nd respondent and requested for some more time for delivery of the balance consignment. The truck sheet/CMR delivery forms to be downloaded from the web portal. The said portal was available only upto 20.06.2026. Since the portal is not opening, the petitioner requested the respondents to open the online portal for downloading the truck sheet/CMR delivery forms for delivery of the balance quantity. Upon the request of the petitioner, the respondents opened the online portal on 30.06.2026. Thereafter, the petitioner downloaded the truck sheet/CMR delivery form and sent the consignment along with the said CMR delivery forms on the same day. But, the 1^st respondent refused to accept the said consignment on the ground that the stipulated date for delivery of the consignment is lapsed. Due to the technical issue in the website for downloading the CMR delivery forms only, the delay occurred. Now, the respondents initiated steps to invoke the petitioner's bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/-, leading to the filing of the present writ petition.

¶44

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and Sri Tadisetti Venkata Anand Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶45

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not supply the remaining CMR solely because of the technical

¶46

5

¶47

issue of the Portal. It was argued that without CMR delivery forms, transportation and delivery of CMR was very difficult. It was further submitted that the respondents opened the online portal on 30.06.2026 and on the very same day the balance consignment was sent. But, the respondents returned the said consignment on the ground of delay. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the delay, and the proposed encashment of the bank guarantee is arbitrary. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to supply the remaining CMR if reasonable time is granted.

¶48

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation, furnished written instructions dated 02.07.2026 issued by the District Civil Supplies Manager, APSCSCL, Krishna District, and submits that after issuance of notice dated 16.06.2026, the petitioner appeared before the 2^nd respondent and requested time for delivery of the consignment. Considering the said request, the time was granted to the petitioner to deliver the CMR upto 30.06.2026. It was submitted that despite the extension, the petitioner failed to supply the CMR in terms of the agreement. Therefore, the respondents had no option but to invoke the bank guarantee to procure the required quantity of CMR from other sources at the prevailing market price. With regard to the request for further extension, the learned Standing Counsel opposed the grant of one week's time and submitted that, at the most, only one day could be granted.

¶49

Heard both counsel and perused the material available on record.

¶50

6

¶51

The fact remains that the petitioner was required to supply the Custom Milling Rice (CMR) in terms of the agreement entered into with A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. The dispute between the parties related to the availability of the A.P. Paddy Procurement Portal, which, according to the petitioner, prevented the transportation and supply of CMR. The rival contentions raised by both parties involved disputed questions of fact regarding the functioning of the portal and the petitioner's inability to perform its contractual obligations. Such technical and factual disputes could not be conclusively adjudicated in the present writ proceedings.

¶52

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to supply the remaining quantity of CMR, and interests of both parties, the petitioner is permitted to complete the supply of CMR as per the terms of agreement to the respondent on or before 04.07.2026. This Court further makes it clear that, in the event of the petitioner's failure to comply with the said direction, the respondents would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, including invoking the bank guarantee. If, the petitioner supplies the remaining quantity of CMR as per the terms of the agreement, the respondents are restrained from invoking the same. However, if the bank guarantee was already encashed, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the same by initiating appropriate proceedings.

¶53