M/S Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Vs Subramanya Agro Industries Algud Limit

SUBRAMANYA AGRO INDUSTRIES ALGUD LIMIT NANJANGUD ROAD T. NARASIPURA MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 124 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR S. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶17

SRI MAHADESHWAR RICE MILL GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD T. NARASIPURA - 571 124 MYSORE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI B.N. MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:18820-DB WA No. 1854 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

KANAKA RICE INDUSTRIES NANJANGUD ROAD T. NARASIPURA - 571 124 MYSORE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI B.N. SURESH KUAMR A AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶21

SRI KANAKA MODERN RICE MILL NANJANGUD ROAD T. NARASIPURA MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 124 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI B.N. SURESH KUAMR AGED 49 YEARS

¶22

SRI MAHADESHWAR MODERN BINNY RICE MILL NO. 597, 560, MUDDABEERANA HUNDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, T. NARASIPUR - 571 124 MYSORE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS OWNER SRI BASAVARAJ B.N AGE 62 YEARS

¶23

SRI MALAI MAHADESHWARA INDUSTRIES YELAVAR HUNDI, T.N PURA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SMT. SUSHEELAMMA AGE 77 YEARS

¶24

SRI MADESHWAR AGRO RICE TECH AYUR ROAD, T. NARASIPUR - 571 101 MYSORE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI B.N.BADEGOWDA AGE ABOUT 64 YEARS

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:18820-DB WA No. 1854 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

SRI MANJUNATHESHWARA RICE MILL GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD VIVEKNANDA NAGAR

¶29

T. NARASIPUPAR - 571 124 MYSORE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI M.P. SIDDARAJU AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶30

THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶31

THE COMMISSIONER FOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES NO.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001

¶32

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FOOD) MYSORE DISTRICT

¶33

MYSORE - 570 001

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., AGA FOR R-9 TO 11)

¶36

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN W.P. No. 13133 OF 2023 (GM-PDS) DISPOSED ON 11.06.2024 BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT b.ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. No. 13133 OF 2023 (GM-PDS) & ETC.

¶37

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:18820-DB WA No. 1854 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶41

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶42

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶43

The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.13133/2023 (GM-PDS), whereby the learned Single Judge had set aside the order dated 30.04.2021 passed by the Appellate Authority (Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Bangalore), in Appeal No. A.N.A.S.47.RPR/2019 (30396).

¶44

The Appellate Authority had accepted the respondents' claim for payment of transportation expenses. A plain reading of the said order indicates that their claim was accepted on the ground that the department had also paid transportation costs of hulling in connection with the MSP process in Tumkur District in the year 2015-16. However, the respondents were not granted any interest on the claims accepted by the Appellate Authority.

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:18820-DB WA No. 1854 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

There is no dispute regarding the transportation costs, which were paid. The respondents had preferred the writ petition, claiming interests at the rate of 12% per annum on the transportation charges on the ground that the same had been unjustifiably withheld. The learned Single Judge found that since the liability to pay transportation charges had been admitted, the appellants would also be required to pay reasonable interest, so as to mitigate the hardship caused to the respondents on account of non-payment of transportation charges. Thus, the learned Single Judge essentially directed the appellant to compensate the respondents for the time value of money by paying interest at the rate of 9% from 01.07.2015 (the date on which the amounts became due) to 21.11.2022 (the date on which the amounts were actually paid).

¶48

The present appeal has been filed after a delay of 451 days. The affidavit accompanying the present appeal indicates that the respondents have questioned the decision to direct payment of interest on the merits. Insofar as the delay is concerned, the explanation provided by the respondents reads as follows:

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:18820-DB WA No. 1854 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

"5. I submit that, all the respondents in the writ proceedings were collectively represented by the learned Government Advocate and as such we were not having complete knowledge about the court proceedings and its result. I further submit that, recently, during the first week of November, 2025 when I was discussing the matter with higher ups I got knowledge about the order impugned in this writ appeal. I submit that, since we being Government organizations and for administrative reasons we could not take decision immediately to file and appeal and however after deliberating the matter with all concerned and immediately without any further delay the instant writ appeal has been preferred."

¶53

It is apparent from the above that apart from claiming ignorance of the impugned order, the only ground for explaining the delay is "for administrative reasons". We are unable to accept that the appellant can claim ignorance of the orders which were passed in the petition, where they were duly represented by counsel. Further, the affidavit is bereft of any specific details. It does not even mention the date when the order was communicated. There are also no specific details as to the administrative process, which, according to the appellant, had occasioned the delay in filing the appeal.

¶54

In Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd.,¹ , the Supreme Court had observed as under:

¶55

1 (2012) 3 SCC 563

¶56

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:18820-DB WA No. 1854 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

" 29 . In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."

¶59

We are unable to accept that the inordinate delay of 451 days ought to be condoned on the basis of unsubstantiated statements of administrative delay as set out in the affidavit/application. The application seeking condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as well.

¶60

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶61

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶62

SD, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 21

M/S Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., v. Subramanya Agro Industries Algud Limit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., v. Subramanya Agro Industries Algud Limit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Indira Vs Sri Shreyas G S

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Eswarappa M

Sri. Subbanna Vs Canara Bank

Sri Manjunath C S Vs Mr Prabhu Linga Kavala Katti

Sri Prashant Rao Vs Central Minister for Road Transport and Highways

Komtech Plastic Technologies India Private Limited Vs Zrii Technologies Inc.