aspects and while rejecting claim of KRM has allowed claim of the petitioner and respondents were directed to allot paddy to the petitioner. 8. Counsel for the respondents submits that respondent has challenged order dated 21.09.2022 passed in LPA No. 399 of 2022 before Supreme Court. Hon’ble Court vide order dated 13.04.2023 stayed operation of order dated 21.09.2022 passed by Division Bench of this Court. Supreme Court by order dated 18.08.2023 has modified its earlier order to the extent the respondents have been directed to consider claim of the petitioner in accordance with existing policy. The proprietor of the petitioner is one of the partners of KRM and as per petitioner himself, he remained partner till 31.07.2023, thus, for all purposes, he is partner of KRM which is a defaulter firm. The respondent applying Clause 7(v) of the policy has rejected claim of the petitioner. The respondent does not dispute the fact that petitioner became partner of KRM after obtaining approval of the department, however, submits that case of the petitioner is covered by clause 7 (v) of the policy, thus, he is not entitled to allotment of paddy. The petitioner is as good defaulter as KRM. The policy is quite clear that if a proprietor/partner/member of an entity is also proprietor/partner/member of another entity which is a defaulter entity, both the entities would not be entitled to allotment of paddy. The petitioner has alternative remedy of second appeal, thus, he should be relegated to avail remedy of appeal.
