Dismissed

Kollengode Block Registered Seed Growere v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC21 May 2010WP(C)/5467/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an unregistered paddy growers' organization, challenged discriminatory pricing in seed procurement by Kerala authorities compared to Karnataka. The court rejected the claim due to the petitioner's lack of legal standing and noted that price variations stemmed from seed quality, processing levels, and the nature of the procuring entities.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition seeking directive for uniform seed procurement prices was dismissed as the petitioner lacked legal standing to file the petition.

Kollengode Block Registered Seed Growere Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 5467 of 2010(G)

¶6

---------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

---------------

¶9

KOLLENGODE BLOCK REGISTERED SEED GROWERS PROGRAM OOTTARA, KOLLENGODE P.O., PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR T.JAYAPRAKASH, VATTAYAKULAM OOTTARA, KOLLENGODE P.O., PALAKKAD.

¶10

BY ADVS. MR.H.BADARUDDIN

¶11

MRS.B.SHAMEERA MRS.M.ARCHANA

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

---------------

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶15

2. JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE STATE SEED DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR.

¶16

MR. M.A. ASIF - GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/5/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 5467 of 2010

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶20

EXT.P1:	COPY OF RERPESENTATIN DT 15.11.09 MADE BY THE PETITONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT.
EXT.P2:	COPY OF THAT QUESTIONNAIRE MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO SOME OFFIERS INCLUDING THAT OF R2 UNDER THE RTI ACT.
EXT.P3:	COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER FOR THE EXT.P2 RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF R2.
EXT.P4:	COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF SEED DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR DT.14.5.2009 FOR THE YEAR 2008-09.
EXT.P5:	COPY OF LETTER FROM AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, VADAVANNUR TO THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE KSSDA, THRISSUR DT 25.5.2009.

¶21

TRUE COPY

¶22

PA TO JUDGE.

¶23

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶24

W.P.(C) No.5467 OF 2010

¶25

Dated this the 21^st day of MAY, 2010

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The petitioner claims to be an Organisation of growers

¶28

of paddy at Kollengode in Chittur Taluk, Palakkad District. Their grievance in this writ petition is that in the matter of procurement of paddy seeds, uniform prices are not given to growers of Kerala and Karnataka. According to the petitioner, the National Seed Corporation, who procures paddy seeds from growers of Karnataka, pays them Rs.21/- per kilogram, whereas in Kerala the respondents pay to the members of the petitioner’s Organisation only Rs.15/- per kilogram. This according to the petitioner is discriminatory. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs:

¶29

“(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to forbear from discriminating the citizens while purchasing paddy seeds from the members of the petitioner organization and purchasing the same from the farmers of other States and NSC while tendering the purchase price, for the procurement of paddy seeds; and

¶30

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the

¶31

W.P.(c)No.5467/10

¶32

¶33

respondents to tender the rate of Rs.21/- per kilogram, presently, to the members of the petitioner organization instead of Rs.15/ - per kilogram for such procurement of paddy seed from the farmers of Kerala unless and until further rate is revised by the Government; and to abstain from tendering discriminative rates to the farmers for procuring paddy seed by taking note of Exhibit P1 representation;”

¶34

The 2^nd respondent has filed a statement. In the same, while admitting that the farmers in Kerala are paid Rs.15/- per kilogram and farmers in Karnataka are paid Rs.21/- per kilogram, they would submit that there is no discrimination in the same in so far as Rs.15/- per kilogram is paid to unprocessed seeds whereas in Karnataka Rs.21/- per kilogram is paid to processed seeds.

¶35

I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

¶36

At the outset, I note that the petitioner has not

¶37

chosen to establish his status in this writ petition in regard to their legal entitlement to file a writ petition. A writ petition can be filed only by a legal entity like Company, Society, Trade Union etc., registered under a particular legislation which provides for such registration. The petitioner has not stated in the writ petition , what legal entity they are. As such, I am not satisfied that the petitioner has proved their legal entitlement to file this writ petition.

¶38

Apart from the same, the price of paddy seeds depends

¶39

W.P.(c)No.5467/10

¶40

¶41

on very many factors. The quality of the seed is the most important factor. The seeds, which have a better reproducing capacity, would certainly be purchased for higher price than the seeds of lesser reproducing capacity. Further, as pointed out in the statement by the second respondent, if as a matter of fact the farmers in Kerala are giving only unprocessed seeds and the farmers of Karnataka are giving processed seeds, certainly there cannot be any discrimination on the basis of the price fixed for the two. Even apart from that, as pointed out by the second respondent in the statement, in Karnataka, the procurement is made by the National Seeds Corporation and Karnataka State Seeds Corporation, whereas in Kerala the same is done by the Kerala State Seed Development Authority. The paying capacity of the Organisations is also a relevant factor. Unless all these factors are pointed out and explained satisfactorily, I do not think that the petitioner can make out a case of discrimination in the payment of price. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶42

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶43

acd

¶44

W.P.(c)No.5467/10 4

¶45

W.P.(c)No.5467/10 5

Kollengode Block Registered Seed Growere v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kollengode Block Registered Seed Growere v. State of Kerala and Another

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

Gurudeeksha Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Sabareesh.S. Vs University of Kerala & Another

Josmy Joseph Vs Union of India and Others

K.v.Hamsakutty Vs the Grievance Redressal Officer & Others

Vinodkumar Kuttickat Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Others

Johnson V.M. Vs Union of India and Others