Dismissed

Saibaba Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Feb 2008WP/5247/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging the government's demand for payment for unused wheat supplied at a concessional rate under a scheme. The court held that the issues were questions of fact regarding preservation expenses, which could not be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction, and thus no interference was warranted.

What did the court decide?

Rule discharged. No order as to costs.

2. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner is running a Flour Mill. A scheme was formulated by the Government, whereunder the Flour Mills were to be supplied wheat at the rate of Rs.450/- per quintal with an understanding that the Government will be given back the flour at the decided rate. So far as the Petitioner is concerned, he was allotted 1250 MT of wheat. The Petitioner admittedly received 1250 MT of wheat. Out of that wheat, he crushed the wheat for supply the flour to the Government. But the Government did not buy the flour. He was permitted to sell it. But at that time 233.500 metric tonnes of wheat was still in stock with the Petitioner, which was not crushed by him. But the Government permitted him to deal with that stock in the manner he desired. But the Government wanted to recover

Rs.173/- per quintal for the wheat which was not used for the scheme, because that wheat was supplied to the Petitioner at the concessional rate. The Government was also to recover Rs.18 per gunny bag for the balance bags.

3. This order was challenged in this Court by filing Writ Petition No.1546 of 2001 and other Writ Petitions. It appears that this court directed the Government to hear the Petitioner and make an order. Accordingly, the State Government heard the Petitioner and made an order dated 31st July, 2002 confirming its decision. Therefore, by this petition the Petitioner challenges not only the order dated 28th May, 2001, but also the order dated 31st July, 2002 passed by the State Government.

4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. It is not the case of the Petitioner that on 28th May, 2001 when the order was made he was not in possession of 220.033 MT of wheat, which was uncrushed and which was received by him at the concessional rate. It is also not in dispute that the Government had permitted him to deal with that wheat in the manner he wants, and therefore, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the Government took unreasonable stand that because now the Petitioner is permitted to deal with the wheat in the manner he wants, he should pay to the Government the market price of the wheat. Similarly, there is nothing

gunny bag. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that it was the case of the Petitioner that after having received the wheat he had to preserve it till 2001 and therefore, claiming Rs.173/- per Quintal for the uncrushed wheat was unreasonable. In our opinion, it will depend on the inquiry into the fact as to what is the expenses made by the Petitioner for preserving the wheat. We find that the petition raises the questions which are essentially a question of fact, which cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction of this court. In short, we do not find any reason to interfere in favour of the Petitioner. Petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.

Saibaba Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saibaba Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

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

Anil Vishram Poyekar Vs Pranoti Anil Poyekar and Anr.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Dr. Jigna Dinesh Bhatt and Othrs

Ravikiran Vishnupant Ingawale Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Malika Mahadevan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Harishchandra Patil S/O. Bhaskar Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Narayan Singh Shahu Singh and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.