Balaji Warehousing Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Chairman and General Manager

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:51811 WP No. 3762 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 3762 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BALAJI WAREHOUSING COMPANY PVT LTD REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 VENKUS SADAN, NO.610 2^ND CROSS, CHIKKAMARANAHALLI OFF NEW BEL ROAD BENGALURU - 560 094 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI K KODANDA RAMI REDDY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. YESHU BABA R. MISHRA, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

THE CHAIRMAN AND GENERAL MANAGER

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA 16-20, BARKHAMBA LANE NEW DELHI - 110 001

¶14

THE GENERAL MANAGER KARNATAKA REGION FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA NO.10, EAST END MAIN ROAD 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 041

¶15

THE AREA MANAGER FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:51811 WP No. 3762 of 2021

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AREA OFFICE PRESTIGE COMPLEX RAMASWAMY CIRCLE MYSORE - 570 020

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. N. DINESH RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2

¶22

R3 - SERVED UNREPRESENTED)

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED REPORT, DTD 16.01.2020 VIDE ANNX-A SUBMITTED BY A FIVE MEMBER COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

In this writ petition the petitioner is assailing the impugned report dated 16.01.2020 (Annexure-A) submitted by five member committee constituted by the respondentCorporation, inter alia, sought for direction to the respondentCorporation to refund the Security Deposit paid by the petitioner to the tune of ₹3,21,88,406/- with interest at rate of 18% per annum.

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:51811 WP No. 3762 of 2021

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Heard Sri Yeshu Baba R. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri N.Dinesh Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the court to Annexure-M, the letter addressed by the area manager of respondent-Corporation at Mysore to the General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Mysore, wherein the said letter reflects the conduct of the petitioner insofar as complying with the contractual obligation by the petitioner with respondent-Corporation. However, the same is not produced by the respondentCorporation before the five member committee at the time of proceedings made pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.17847/2018. Accordingly, sought for interference by this Court.

¶33

Per contra, Sri N.Dinesh Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation, invited the attention of the court to the report of the five members committee and submitted that the five member committee has considered the entire material on record and has arrived at a conclusion and

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:51811 WP No. 3762 of 2021

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

passed the impugned order at Annexure-A and therefore contended that the petitioner is liable to pay ₹1,41,91,490/towards Wharfage charges incurred by the Corporation and therefore sought to justify the action by the respondentCorporation at Annexure-A to the writ petition.

¶37

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, a five member committee was constituted in terms of the order dated 19.09.2019 in W.P.No.17847/2018 (Annexure-J) and paragraph 11 of the order passed by this Court reads as under:

¶38

"11. In view of the above analysis, the impugned order dated 17.03.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondent-corporation is granted liberty to constitute a Committee of five members in light of the order dated 18.04.2016 afresh and the aforesaid Committee shall conduct an enquiry after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and shall adjudicate the liability of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three months from today.

¶39

With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of. "

¶40

It is the submission of the petitioner that, by referring to the note sheet of the respondent-Corporation in the letter addressed by the area manager of the respondent-Corporation, Mysore to the General Manager of the respondent-Corporation,

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:51811 WP No. 3762 of 2021

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

the petitioner has made all best efforts to sort out the issue with the labour. However, on account of the strike called out by the employees of the respondent-Corporation, the petitioner was not able to discharge his duties and therefore, I am of the view that the said letter, which is an internal correspondence between the officers of the Corporation, essentially is required to be considered by the five member committee before passing the impugned order at Annexure-A.

¶44

In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as to the observation made at Annexure-M to the writ petition. In that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that, the matter requires to be reconsidered by the respondentCorporation, Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i. The writ petition is allowed;

¶47

ii. The impugned report dated 16.01.2020 at Annexure-A, passed by the five member

¶48

committee, is hereby quashed and set aside;

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:51811 WP No. 3762 of 2021

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

iii. The matter is remitted to the five member committee to reconsider the issue afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to both sides, particularly referring to consideration of the letter at Annexure-M to the writ petition;

¶53

iv. The committee shall take a decision in the matter in accordance with law within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order;

¶54

v. It is also open for the respondent-corporation to reconstitute the committee, if required taking into consideration the factual aspects on record;

¶55

vi. All contentions of the parties are kept.

¶56

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶57

HDK

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30 CT-SG

Balaji Warehousing Company Pvt. Ltd. v. the Chairman and General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaji Warehousing Company Pvt. Ltd. v. the Chairman and General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Anitha M. Varma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Srilakshmi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Munihanumamma @ Rathnamma Vs Sri.Buddadas

M/S Fine Serve Hospitality Services (India) Vs Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

Mr Chuna Rafi Ahmed Vs the Karnataka State Board

Sri. Nagesh Prabhu Vs the Assistant Commissioner