Allowed

M/s. Vinayaka Agro industries v. Union of lnida

Telangana HC1 Feb 2013WP/26182/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner approached this court via a writ petition challenging the inaction of the respondent in considering its supplementary bill for freight charges. The court directed the respondent to decide on the claim within one month without expressing an opinion on the merits, based on a relevant government letter. The interim petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.4 to consider and decide on the petitioner's bills and communicate the decision within one month of receipt.

M/s. Vinayaka Agro industries Vs Union of lnida — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.26182 of 2012

¶3

Date:01.02.2013

¶4

Between: M/s Vinayaka Agro Industries Modern Par Boiled Rice Mill, Rakasopet, Reptd by its PartnerSri T.Peddi Reddy

¶5

… Petitioner And Union of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Department of Food and Public Distribution, New Delhi and three others.

¶6

… Respondents

¶7

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Kamatham Govardhan Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri B.Sudhakar Reddy Additional Standing Counsel for Central Government Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4: Sri Meharchand Noori Standing Counsel for FCI

¶8

This Court made the following:

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.4 in considering and deciding on the petitioner’s supplementary bill for lorry way freight, dated 02.08.2010, pertaining to the crop year 2008-2009, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶11

The innocuous grievance of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the policy fixed by the Government of India with respect to the procurement of rice, the petitioner, who is a rice miller and made supplies of levy rice from the Mills to the Food Corporation of India depots, claimed transportation charges beyond 8 kms from the Mill premises and that hire charges in respect thereof have not been paid. The petitioner placed reliance on part-2 of the letter, dated 31.10.2008, of the Under Secretary to the Government of India, addressed to the Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, to justify his claim for transportation charges beyond 8 kms. The petitioner pleaded that he has submitted the bills on the basis of the said letter to respondent No.4 and that the said respondent has not taken any decision on his claim.

¶12

Inasmuch as respondent No.4 has to consider the petitioner’s claim in the light of the above-mentioned letter, I refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Respondent No.4 is directed to consider and take a decision on the petitioner’s bills and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶13

Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶14

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.33357 of 2012 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.

¶15

________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy 1^st February2013 Dr

M/s. Vinayaka Agro industries v. Union of lnida

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Vinayaka Agro industries v. Union of lnida

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

Sunrise Indusrial Filing Center Vs The Government of India

G. Ramanamma, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Saraswathi Educational Society, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kameswari Education Society Vs Governmement of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Ellapally Sathamma , a. Sattemma, Vs The District Collector

Shaik Hussain Peera, S/o Khasim Peera, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its