Disposed

M/S Master Foods v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Oct 2023CWP/20632/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a common order, the High Court disposed of multiple writ petitions filed by rice millers challenging rejection of free paddy allotment claims based on delayed electricity connections, directing authorities to reconsider eligibility for those connected by 02.09.2023.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to reconsider cases of petitioners who secured electricity connection on or before 02.09.2023 and comply with other policy terms within ten days.

M/S Master Foods Vs State of Punjab… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

CWP No.20632 of 2023 - 1 - 2023:PHHC:131345

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

	Date of D	ecision:10.10.2023
(1) CWP No.20632 of 2023
M/s Master Foods		….Petitioner
	vs.
State of Punjab and others
(2) CWP No.20530 of 2023		….Respondents
M/s Kanhaji Rice Mills		….Petitioner
	vs.
State of Punjab and others
		….Respondents
(3) CWP No.22045 of 2023
M/s Shri Guru Gobind Singh Ji	Rice Mills	….Petitioner
	vs.
State of Punjab and others
(4) CWP No.22225 of 2023		….Respondents
M/s J B Agro Foods		….Petitioner
	vs.
State of Punjab and others
		….Respondents

¶4

PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2023.10.10 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶5

CWP No.20632 of 2023 - 2 - 202	3:PHHC:131345
(5) CWP No.22251 of 2023
M/s Moti Ram Rice and General Mills
	….Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab and others
(6) CWP No.22346 of 2023	….Respondents
Shiv Bhole Rice Mills	….Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab and others
(7) CWP No.22318 of 2023	….Respondents
M/s Aaradhya International
	….Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab and others
(8) CWP No.22447 of 2023	….Respondents
M/s Shree Durga Rice Mill	….Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab and others
(9) CWP No.22570 of 2023	….Respondents
M/s Shri Salasar Rice Mills and others vs.	….Petitioners
State of Punjab and others	….Respondents

¶6

PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2023.10.10 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶7

CWP No.20632 of 2023 - 3 -	2023:PHHC:131345
(10) CWP No.22698 of 2023
M/s Lakshmi Rice Mill and others	….Petitioners
	vs.
State of Punjab and others
(11) CWP No.22761 of 2023	….Respondents
M/s Aggarwal Rice Mill
	….Petitioner
	vs.
State of Punjab and others
(12) CWP No.22770 of 2023	….Respondents
Maa Anjani Rice Mill through its p	artner Akash Garg
	….Petitioner
	vs.
State of Punjab and others
(13) CWP No.22783 of 2023	….Respondents
M/s Bansal Food Products
	….Petitioner
	vs.
State of Punjab and others
(14) CWP No.22940 of 2023	….Respondents
M/s Maa Annapurna Rice Mills	….Petitioner
State of Punjab	vs.
PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI	….Respondent
2023.10.10 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶8

CWP No.20632 of 2023 - 4 - 2023:PHHC:131345

¶9

(15) CWP No.22938 of 2023

¶10

M/s Radha Raman Foods and others

¶11

….Petitioners

¶12

vs.

¶13

State of Punjab and others

¶14

….Respondents

¶15

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

¶16

Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Raman Kaplish, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP Nos. 20632, 22447, 22318, 20530, 22940 of 2023

¶17

Mr. Prince Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.22770 of 2023 Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-22761 of 2023 Mr. Daman Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-22698, 22570, 22045, 22938 of 2023 Mr. Anurag Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-22346, 22251, 22225, 22783 of 2023 Mr. Deepanjay Sharma, DAG, Punjab assisted by Mr. Ajaiveer Singh Saron, Addl. Director, Food and Civil Supplies Mr. Aditya Vermani, Advocate for respondent No. 4 in CWP-22761 of 2023 Mr. Sumit Jain, Advocate and Mr. Abhishek Arora and Mr. Tarun Seth, Advocates for PUNGRAIN

¶18

Mr. M.S.Batth, Advocate for PUNGRAIN

¶19

PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2023.10.10 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶20

CWP No.20632 of 2023 - 5 - 2023:PHHC:131345

¶21

***

¶22

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

¶23

By this common order, CWP Nos. 20632, 20530, 22045, 22251, 22225, 22346, 22318, 22447, 22570, 22698, 22761, 22770, 22783, 22940 and 22938 of 2023 are hereby adjudicated as common questions of law and facts are involved. With the consent of both sides, facts are borrowed from CWP No. 20632 of 2023.

¶24

The petitioner through the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders dated 02.09.2023 (Annexure P-10) and dated 07.09.2023 (Annexure P-11) whereby respondent Nos. 3 and 2, respectively, have rejected claim of the petitioner for allotment of free paddy.

¶25

The brief facts of the case which are necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition are that the petitioner is engaged in the business of processing and milling of rice. The petitioner is dependent upon paddy allotted by State Government. The State Government, like previous years, on 31.07.2023 declared Custom Milling Police for KMS 2023-24. As per policy, a miller was required to get provisional registration by 22.07.2023 and final registration by 01.09.2023. The petitioner installed plant and machinery, however, electricity connection was released by Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (in short “PSPCL”) on 01.09.2023. The respondents conducted inspection on or before 01.09.2023 by which date electricity connection was not in operation. The petitioner applied for electricity connection in the month of June-July 2023, however, electricity

¶26

PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2023.10.10 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶27

CWP No.20632 of 2023 - 6 - 2023:PHHC:131345

¶28

department could not release connection on the ground of non-availability of Current Transfer and Potential Transfer (CTPT).

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that last date for registration was 01.09.2023 and petitioner by said date got electricity connection and in any case, the petitioner was not at fault in getting electricity connection. Electricity connection was not to be released by a private organization whereas it is released by PSPCL, which is a State Government agency. The petitioner applied well within time for electricity connection, thus, for any lapse on the part of Government agency petitioner cannot be penalized.

¶30

Learned State counsel submits that respondents have reconsidered the entire issue and formed an opinion that all the millers who got electricity connection on or before 02.09.2023 would be allotted free paddy apart from their eligibility for RO paddy. He further submits that despite passing any adverse order against any party on earlier dates, the matter would be re-considered and if it is found that apart from getting electricity connection by 02.09.2023, a miller had installed plant and machinery, it would be entitled to allotment of paddy.

¶31

Faced with the statement of learned State counsel, learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to the aforesaid arrangement.

¶32

In the wake of statements of both sides, the petitions stand disposed of. The respondents shall re-consider case of the petitioners who have secured electricity connection on or before 02.09.2023 and comply with all other terms and conditions of the policy. The entire exercise shall be

¶33

PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2023.10.10 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶34

CWP No.20632 of 2023 - 7 - 2023:PHHC:131345

¶35

completed within ten days and ignoring all earlier orders passed by the

¶36

authorities.

¶37

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE

¶38

10.10.2023 paramjit

¶39

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes ��

¶40

PARAMJIT KAUR SAINI 2023.10.10 16:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

M/S Master Foods v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Master Foods v. State of Punjab and Others

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

Tarlok Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Khanna Vs Allahabad Bank and Ors.

Amarjit Singh Vs Central University of Haryana Mahendergarh and Anr.

Rajesh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dr. Vijay Lakshmi Singh Vs Union of India & Others

Mandeep Singh Vs Union of India and Others