Disposed¶30

M/Ssaraswati Rice Mills v. Union of India and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Jul 2026CWP/8809/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP 8809/2002 (O&M), Punjab & Haryana HC Chandigarh, Nidhi Gupta J., 27.07.2026; Saraswati Rice Mills v. Union of India; CMR driage allowance KMS 1996-97 reduced 2% to 1% by GoI letter 03.12.1998 (Annexure P-9); restored 1% to 2% vide letter 28.06.2002 (Annexure R-1/1) per judgment dated 29.11.2001 in CWP 833/2001; FCI letter 11.4.2002; recovery restraint sought; petition disposed as infructuous; liberty to revive within four weeks; Articles 226/227.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as infructuous; no fresh relief adjudicated since the claimed relief (restoration of 2% driage allowance for KMS 1996-97) already stands granted; liberty granted to the petitioner to seek revival within four weeks if any surviving cause of action subsists; pending applications disposed of. ¶30

M/Ssaraswati Rice Mills Vs Union of India… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the letter dated 03.12.1998 reducing the driage allowance on Custom Milled Rice (CMR) procured during Kharif Marketing Season 1996-97 from 2% to 1% for rice milled up to 31.12.1996 (and the consequential recovery notices by State procurement agencies) was arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and unsustainable in law, entitling the petitioner to 2% driage allowance with consequential benefits and restraint of any recovery.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The present writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous, the claim sought by the petitioner having already been granted in view of the common judgment dated 29.11.2001 in C.W.P. No.833 of 2001, pursuant to which the driage allowance was restored from 1% to 2% vide communication dated 28.06.2002 (Annexure R-1/1) superseding the impugned letter dated 03.12.1998.

¶30

Key takeaways

In the event any surviving cause of action still subsists in favour of the petitioner, liberty is granted to seek revival of the writ petition by moving an appropriate application within a period of four weeks from today.ratio¶31
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, CWP No.8809 of 2002 (O&M), Nidhi Gupta, J. (oral), decided 27.07.2026. M/s Saraswati Rice Mills, under Articles 226/227, sought quashing of the Government of India, Ministry of Food, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution letter dated 03.12.1998 (Annexure P-9) reducing driage allowance on Custom Milled Rice procured during KMS 1996-97 from 2% to 1% for rice milled up to 31.12.1996, and the consequential recovery notices by State procurement agencies, plus mandamus to restore 2% driage allowance with benefits and restrain recovery. The State's short reply dated 30.05.2013 averred the identical issue stood concluded by this Court's common judgment dated 29.11.2001 in C.W.P. No.833 of 2001; in compliance, driage was restored from 1% to 2% vide communication dated 28.06.2002 (Annexure R-1/1), superseding the 03.12.1998 letter, with instructions to FCI dated 11.04.2002. None appeared for the petitioner (office report dated 22.07.2026). The Court disposed of the petition as infructuous, granted liberty to seek revival by application within four weeks if any surviving cause of action subsists, and disposed of pending applications.

¶1

CWP-8809-2002 (O & M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

203

¶4

CWP No.8809 of 2002 (O & M) Date of decision :-27.07.2026

¶5

M/s Saraswati Rice Mills

¶6

…..Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Union of India and another

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶11

Present:None for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Manmeet Singh Teji, A A G Punjab.

¶13

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

¶14

Prayer in the present Civ i l Writ Petition filed under Articles 2 26/227 of the Constitution of I n dia is for issuance of a writ in the n a ture of Certiorari for quashing the letter dated 03.12.1998 (Annexu r e P-9) issued by the Governme n t of India, Ministry of Food, Consume r Affairs and Public Distrib u tion, whereby the driage allowanc e in respect of Custom Milled R ice (CMR) procured during the Kharif Marketing Season 1996-97 w a s reduced from 2% to 1% for rice mill e d up to 31.12.1996, and the c o nsequential recovery notices issued b y the State procurement agenc i es, on the grounds that the same are arbitrary, illegal, discriminato r y and unsustainable in law. Further p rayer is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant 2% dri a ge allowance on the Custom Milled R i ce procured during the Kharif Marketing Season 1996-97,

¶15

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.30 12.30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CWP-8809-2002 (O & M) 2

¶17

along wi t h all consequential benefits, and to restrain the respondents from effecting any recovery pursuant to t h e impugned letter.

¶18

At the very outset, learned counsel for the State invites the attent i on of this Court to the short re p ly dated 30.05.2013 filed on behalf o f respondent No.1-Union of I ndia, wherein it has been specifica l ly averred that the issue involv e d in the present writ petition already s t ands concluded by a common judgment dated 29.11.2001 passed b y this Court in CWP No.833 o f 2001 and other connected matters. I t has further been stated that, in compliance with the said judgment, the Government of India revi s ed the final rates of Custom Milled R i ce for the Kharif Marketing Se a son 1996-97 and restored the driage a l lowance from 1% to 2% vide communication dated 28.06.20 0 2 (Annexure R-1/1), thereby superseding the impugned letter dat e d 03.12.1998.

¶19

Para 2 of the said short re p ly dated 30.5.2013 reads as

¶20

follows : -

¶21

“2. That it may be respectfully submitted here that identical cases a s the present one were filed before this Hon'ble C ourt. The said writ petitions including C.W.P. N o .833 of 2001 on the same issue as involved in t h e present writ petition were allowed by this Ho n 'ble Court by a common judgment dated 29. 1 1.2001 in favour of the petitioners therein. It is thereafter that the judgment of this Hon' b le Court in those cases was implemented in cons u ltation with the Ministry of Law and driage from October, 1996 to December, 1996 has been enha n ced from 1% to 2%. The

¶22

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.30 12.30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

CWP-8809-2002 (O & M) 3

¶24

necessary instruction s were issued to the FCI vide letter dated 11.4.200 2 . The final rate of Custom Milled Rice (CMR) fo r Kharif Marketing Season 1996-1997 in respe c t of Punjab, which is the subject matter of present writ petition was revised in pursuance of dec i sion of this Hon'ble Court thereby raising the dr i age from 1% to 2%. A copy. of the decision dat e d 28.6.2002 indicating the aforesaid factual posi t ion is being appended to the instant reply as An n exure R-1/1. In effect the impugned letter date d 3.12.1998 has since been superceded vide letter dated 28.6.2002, whereby the prayer of the millers including the petitioner has been allowed. In v iew of the aforesaid facts the present writ petit i on has been rendered infructuous as the claim sought for by the petitioner has since been granted by the respondents in vie w of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court date d 29.11.2001 rendered in C.W.P. No.833 of 200 1 .” On the strength of the a f oresaid averments, learned

¶25

counsel f or the State submits that the r e lief sought by the petitioner already stands granted and, therefore, t h e present writ petition has been ren d ered infructuous.

¶26

As per the office report dated 22.07.2026, learned counsel f o r the petitioner was duly infor m ed about the date of hearing. However , none has appeared on behalf o f the petitioner.

¶27

In view of the statement ma d e by learned counsel for the State an d the stand taken in the reply f i led on behalf of respondent

¶28

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.30 12.30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CWP-8809-2002 (O & M) 4

¶30

No.1, the present writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuo u s.

¶31

However, in the event any s u rviving cause of action still subsists i n favour of the petitioner, liber t y is granted to the petitioner to seek r e vival of the present writ petiti o n by moving an appropriate applicati o n within a period of four weeks from today.

¶32

Ordered accordingly.

¶33

Pending application(s), if a n y, shall also stand disposed of.

¶34

A copy of this order be sent to the petitioner at the address m entioned in the Memo of Partie s .

¶35

Whether sp e aking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Re p ortable Yes / No

¶36

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.07.30 12.30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

M/Ssaraswati Rice Mills v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/Ssaraswati Rice Mills v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeev Johar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

P.K. Singla and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Deepak Vaisoha Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Komal Vs State of Haryana and Others

Partap Singh Sabharwal Vs State of Haryana

Nancy Vs Haryana Public Service Commission and Another