Dismissed

Food Corporation of India v. Ayyappa Roller Mills Limited

Kerala HC3 Jul 2018WA/1055/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed two writ appeals filed by the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and a subsidiary party. The Court held that the FCI could not validly array the Union of India as a co-appellant, rendering the appeals pressed without the Central Government's agency untenable. Consequently, the appeals were summarily dismissed and not entertained.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeals filed by the appellants are dismissed as they are not entertained.

Food Corporation of India Vs Ayyappa Roller Mills… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2018 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶6

WA.No. 1055 of 2017 IN WPC. 33625/2003

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 33625/2003 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 09-06-2016

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:

¶9

1 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA

¶10

16-20, BARAKHAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI-110001,

¶11

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶12

2 SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER,

¶13

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA,

¶14

KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695004.

¶15

3 THE UNION OF INDIA,

¶16

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,

¶17

CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD & PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION,

¶18

DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION,

¶19

"KRISHI BHAVAN", NEW DELHI. [DELETED]

¶20

THE 3RD APPELLANT IS DELETED AS PER THE DIRECTION IN THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.7.2018 IN W.A.NOS.1055/2017 AND 1169/2017.

¶21

BY ADV.SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J., SC, FOOD CORPORATION

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶23

AYYAPPA ROLLER MILLS LIMITED IV/758, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, COCHIN-682022.

¶24

R. BY ADV. SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-07-2018 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1169/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

HRISHIKESH ROY, AG.C.J. &

¶27

A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶28

W.A.NO.1055 OF 2017 & W.A.NO.1169 OF 2017

¶29

Dated this the 3^rd day of July, 2018

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

Hrishikesh Roy, Ag.C.J.

¶32

Heard Sri. P. Jacob Varghese, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants 1 and 2 as also Sri. Premjith Nagendran, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in both the Writ Appeals.

¶33

The challenge of the Food Corporation of India [hereinafter referred to as “the FCI”] in these two Appeals is to the judgment dated 9.6.2016, whereunder, the FCI was directed to work out the amount collected from the writ petitioners and refund the same to the writ petitioner in the W.P. (C).No.33625/2003 within a period of two months as also to desist from going ahead with the recovery of the demanded amount, from the petitioner in the W.P. (C).No.3333/2004.

¶34

The writ petitioners were Roller Flour Mills, who have been allowed to lift wheat from various godowns of the FCI under the Central Pool, for the purpose of export of wheat products. Ext.P1 is the terms and conditions regulating the sale of wheat by the FCI to such roller flour mills, and the Ext.P1

W.A.NO.1055/2017

W.A.NO.1169/2017

Scheme is intended to provide incentive for promotion of export of wheat products from India. The main feature of the Scheme is that the exporter will be charged the then market price of wheat as applicable whenever delivery is made, and there is provision for reimbursement of the post-delivery expenses (handling, clearing, survey and inspection, fumigation, insurance up to the vessel etc.) as also the inland transportation expenses, mentioned in the Ext.P1 Scheme. That apart, Rs.1,750/- per MT was quantified as the rate at which the post-delivery expenses will be reimbursed, and the Exts.P2 and P3 Circulars indicated the price as revised, for the luster lost wheat, the item with which, we are concerned in the present proceedings.

¶40

It is not in dispute that when the exporter satisfies the FCI that the export is made, the post-delivery expenses will be reimbursed to the Roller Flour Mills.

¶41

In this case, the FCI raised demand for refund under the Ext.P4 document, from M/s. Olam Exports (India) Ltd.. Likewise the other litigant M/s. Ayyappa Roller Flour Mills, as the exporter, prayed for a direction for refund of the reimbursable amount. Both cases were analogously considered by the writ court.

¶42

It was projected by the writ petitioners that the rates for purchase of the wheat from the FCI was notified from time to time by the Central

W.A.NO.1055/2017

W.A.NO.1169/2017

Government, and that was projected to be the applicable rate for the wheat lifted by the writ petitioners. However the learned Judge found that the official ratification to that particular rate was not formally conveyed by the Central Government. In this context, if we refer to the Exts.P2 and P3, it is nowhere stated therein that the rates mentioned are provisional.

¶48

Before the writ court, the FCI contended that the fixation of sale price for the luster lost wheat was tentative, but, as has been already recorded, the Exts.P2 and P3 documents never indicated to be so. However, accepting the projection made by the FCI, the learned Single Judge ordered the Central Government to give necessary sanction to ratify the price of wheat that was sold to the petitioners as per the Exts.P2 and P3 price fixation, and subject to such ratification, the FCI was directed to work out the amount refundable/collectable, from the exporters.

¶49

Interestingly, the Union of India is not in appeal before us, and it is the FCI, who are the appellants in both these cases. The Exts.P2 and P3 documents, relating to price fixation, nowhere indicate that the price mentioned therein were tentative, subject to ratification by the Central Government. In such circumstances, it is difficult to comprehend why the FCI should be aggrieved by the direction issued by the writ court, more so, when the Central Government is not challenging the impugned judgment.

W.A.NO.1055/2017

W.A.NO.1169/2017

The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants 1 and 2 in the above context states that the Central Government was arrayed as the 3^rd appellant, based on instructions received by the FCI to the effect that the interest of the Central Government is to be protected by the FCI in the appeal filed by them. With such instruction the appellants 1 and 2 could have arrayed the Central Government as a respondent in the appeal and not as a co-appellant since in the appeals preferred by the FCI, particularly, when the Central Government has its own panel of lawyers who could have independently preferred the appeal if the Central Government was aggrieved. Therefore the FCI could not have arrayed the Union of India as a co-appellant and accordingly, direct that the 3^rd appellant be struck off from the party array.

¶55

Following the above discussion, it is our considered view that the Writ Appeals filed by the FCI should not be entertained. Consequently the Writ Appeals are dismissed.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

HRISHIKESH ROY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶60

JUDGE

¶61

prp/4/7/18

Food Corporation of India v. Ayyappa Roller Mills Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Food Corporation of India v. Ayyappa Roller Mills Limited

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

M.S. Anil Vs S.K. Jayachandran

Rupesh Ravindran Vs Kerala Water Authority

Annie Thomas Vs the Village Officer, Vadama Village

Sreekuttan Vs State of Kerala

Bimal Roy C.V. Vs the Passport Officer

John Mathew Vs P.T. Aniyankunju