Remanded

K.Kathirvel v. The Managing Director

Madras HC3 Feb 2016WP/1488/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order rejecting the supply of paddy to a rice mill. The Court set aside the order as it was passed without considering the 2nd respondent's recommendation and without affording a personal hearing. The matter was remanded for appropriate orders. Article 226 was the basis of the writ.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 20.10.2015 was set aside and the matter remanded to the 1st respondent with a direction to pass appropriate orders within four weeks after considering the 2nd respondent's com

K.Kathirvel Vs The Managing Director — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.02.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH

¶5

W.P.No.1488 of 2016

¶6

K. Kathirvel Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Managing Director, Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Tambusamy Street, Kilpauk, Chennai-10.

¶9

The Regional Manager,

¶10

Tamilnadu Civil Suplies Corporation Ltd., Manickampalayam Housing Unit,

¶11

Erode – 11. .. Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus callign for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent in his proceedings Sae.Mu.Aanai.No.MP2/6955/2015 dated 20.10.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to supply paddy to the petitioner's rice mill viz., Annapoorani Modern Rice at Anjurampalayam, Attavanai Anumanpalli Post, Arachalur via, Erode Taluk and Distrcit.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondents : Mr. L.P. Shanmugasundaram, Special Govt. Pleader.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner has come forward with this present Writ Petition challenging the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent dated 202.10.2015 and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to supply paddy to the petitioner's rice mill viz., Annapoorani Modern Rice at Anjurampalayam, Attavanai Anumanpalli Post, Arachalur via, Erode Taluk and Distrcit.

¶16

According to the petitioner, the petitioner is the owner of modern rice mill running under the name and style of Annapoorani Modern Rice at Anjurampalayam for the past several years and was appointed as hulling agent by the respondents.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

On 24.8.2014, the Civil Supplies CID Police seized one Omni Van belonging to one Valarmathi, while the husband of said Valarmathi was transporting 14 bags of rice and based on the confession statement given by the husband of said Valarmathi, the respondent officials inspected the petitioner's rice mill and in consequence of which, they issued a show cause notice to show cause as to why the petitioner's rice mill should not be black listed by cancelling the hulling agency. In response to the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation. But the same was not considered by the respondents.

¶19

In the meantime, the District Revenue Officer conducted enquriy under section 6-A of Essential Commodities Act in respect of seizure of rice bags, wherein, the District Revenue Officer passed orders on 24.8.2014 relieving the petitioner from the case by observing that the petitioner is no way connected with the 14 bags of rice seized from the Omni Van. Thereafter, he approached the 2^nd respondent and requested for supply of paddy to his rice mill and on receipt of the same, the 2^nd respondent also communicated the 1^st respondent on 16.2.2015, recommending for supply of paddy to the petitioner. But till date, the 1^st respondent has not passed any orders for supply of paddy.

¶20

Though the petitioner is not involved in any offence under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act and exonerated from all the allegations, the respondent authorities are refusing to supply paddy to petitioner's rice mill. Hence he was forced to close his rice mill, in consequent of which, all the employees have lost their jobs and the petitioner was also forced to pay huge amount to bank by way of interest. Therefore, the petitioner preferred W.P.No.14917 of 2015 for a direction upon the the 1^st respondent to pass orders for supply of paddy to petitioner's rice mill on the basis of communication of the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.27865/2013/P.S.No.2, dated 16.2.2015, wherein, this Court has directed the 1^st respondent to pass appropriate orders by taking into consideration the communication of the 2^nd respondent dated 16.2.2015 within six weeks.

¶21

When the petitioner approached the 1^st respondent along with the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.14917 of 2015 and requested to pass orders considering the 2^nd respondent's communication, the 1^st respondent, without considering order of this Court as well as the communication of the 2^nd respondent passed the impugned order in his proceedings No.Sae.Mu.Aanai.No.MP2/6955/2015 dated 20.10.2015 rejecting the petitioner's request by stating that a charge sheet has been laid in criminal case in C.C.No.87 of 2015 as against the

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

petitioner herein and the same is pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate III, Erode and thus informed the petitioner that pending criminal case, supply of paddy has been temporarily stopped to the petitioner. Aggrieved against the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent, the petitioner is before this court with the present writ petition.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2^nd respondent has made a specific recommendation on 16.2.2015 to the 1^st respondent for supply of paddy, but without considering the said recommendation, the impugned order has been passed. He further submitted that it is incorrect to say charge sheet has been filed in respect of Crime No.253 of 2015 as against this petitioner. Till date, no charge sheet has been laid as against the petitioner.

¶25

Heard the submissions of learned counsel appearing for petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents.

¶26

Irrespective of submissions made on either side, from the materials available on record, this Court finds that the only grievance of the petitioner is that the 1^st respondent, while passing orders, has not taken into consideration the recommendation of the 2^nd respondent. Therefore, by setting aside the impugned order dated 20.10.2015, the matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent and the 1^st respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law after taking note of the communication passed by the 2^nd respondent on 16.2.2015 and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

With the above direction, this Writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

-s/d-

Assistant Registrar

True Copy

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶32

msr

¶33

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶34

¶35

The Managing Director, Tamilnadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Tambusamy Street, Kilpauk, Chennai-10.

¶36

The Regional Manager, Tamilnadu Civil Suplies Corporation Ltd., Manickampalayam Housing Unit,

¶37

Erode – 11.

¶38

+1 cc to C.Prakasam Advocate sr.7206 +1 cc to L.P.Shanmughasundaram Advocate sr.7031

¶39

W.P.No.1488 of 2016
vs(co)
aa16/02/2016

¶40

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.Kathirvel v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Kathirvel v. The Managing Director

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

Sivakami Vs the State Rep by

A.Karthikeyan Vs The Sub Registrar

M.Kalai Selvan Vs The State of Tamilnadu

C.Vasantha Kumar Vs The Inspector of Police

G.Sekar, S/o.Gothandan, Vs The Secretary

M.Jayakumar Vs The Passport Officer