Disposed

M/s.Sri Renuka Paraboiled Industries, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Dec 2021WP/30908/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court order in a writ petition challenging the seizure of paddy by authorities. Court directed the petitioner to respond to show cause notices served on partners and ordered the seizing authority to adjudicate the shortage allegations expeditiously. The petitioner was permitted to run the mill for paddy other than the seized stock.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to respond to show cause notices; directed authorities to adjudicate shortage allegations expeditiously; permitted operation of mill for non-seized paddy.

M/s.Sri Renuka Paraboiled Industries, Vs The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 30908 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s.Sri Renuka Paraboiled lndustries,, Cherial village and mandal, Siddipet district, Rep. by its Partner, Gampa Raju, S/o.Venkataiah Aged about years, occ Business, RJo.H.No.17-40, Cherial village and mandal Siddipet district.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Consumer Affairs, Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶11

¶12

The Collector Civil Supplies, Siddipet district Siddipet

¶13

The District Supply Officer, Siddipet district Siddipet

¶14

The Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation, Siddipet, rep. by^its District Manager

¶15

The Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies Department, Siddipet, Siddipet District.

¶16

..,RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court may be pleased} to issue a Writ, order or direction, more^{particularly,} one in the nature of^{Writ of} Mandamus, by declaring the action of the respondent in^preventing the^{petitioner rice} mill from miling custom milling^paddy delivered to the^{rice mill for the supplyof} thecustom miling rice to the 4th respondent on the^{ground that variationof paddy to} an extent of 3413.40^qtls in less when compared to the stocks^{notedin the booksof} accounts and^physical stock as the same^{is illegal arbitraryand consequently direct} the respondents to^permit the^petitioner rice^mil to undertake^{milling of paddy} delivered to the rice mil for the^purpose of delivery of^{custom milling rice to the 4"'} rerspondent Corporation and Food Corporation of lndia.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^{stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{may be pleased to direct} the respondents to^permit the^petitioner to^run the^{rice mill for milling} of^paddy delivered to the^petitioner rice mill by the^{4tn respondent Corporation for the purpose} of delivery of custom milling rice to the Food Corporation^{for the purpose of delivery} of custom milling rice to the Food Corporation of^india and^{4'n respondent} Corporation,^pending disposal of the above^{writ writ petition.}

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. A PRABHAKAR^RAO

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents No¹ to 3,^{5: GP FORCIVIL SUPPLIES}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No 4: SRI^{T.P ACHARYA} ,^{SC FORT'S.C.S.C}

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THE: HON'8LE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.30908 of 2021

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:

¶28

"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction pafticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in preventing the petitioner rice mill from milling custom milling paddy delivered to the rice mill for the supply of the custom milling rice to the 4h respondent on the ground that variation of paddy to an extent of 3413.40 qtls in less when compared to the stocks noted in the books of accounts and physical stock as the same is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner rlce mill to undertake miling of paddy delivered to the rice mil for the purpose of delivery of custom milling rice to the 4h respondent Corporation and Food Corporation of India, and pass such other order or orders may deem frt and proper in the circumstances of the case."

¶29

Heard Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5, and Sri T.P.Acharya, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No,4, and with their consent, the Writ^petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.

¶30

The case of the petitioner is that, it is a Rice lvlill undertaking milling of paddy and selling of resultant rice in open market; that it had entered into an agreement with the 4th respondent, under which, the 4th respondent has to deliver paddy purchased by it from the farmers to the petitioner for custom milling and supplying 680/o of boiled rice out of the paddy supplied; and that the petitioner is supplying to the 4th respondent 680/o of Custom lvlilling Rice (CMR) as per the specifications of Food

¶31

¶32

Corporation of India and the^provisions of the Telangana Rice^(Custom Milling) Order, 2015, since last four^years without there being any complaint,

¶33

4, It is contended that the^petitioner mill was supplied with CMR paddy for milllng into rice by the respondents during the current season and when the said stock was in its mill, on 29.09.2021,^{the respondents} have conducted a search, and had drawn a Panchanama^{dt.29'09'20201,} wherein it was recorded that from out of^{the CMRpaddy suppliedto the} petitioner, there is a shortage of 8,533 bags, which was required to^be milled into rice and supplied back to the^{respondents'Upon such shoftage} being noticed, as noted in the^{Panchanama, seizedthe stock of CMR} paddy supplied to the petitioner. The complaint of the^{petitioneris that} the respondents did not^{weighthe paddy bags availablein the rice mill} properly, while effecting seizure, and the counting of^{bags was also not} properly done, which has resulted in the alleged^{shortage,and thus, the} action of seizure,^{is illegal.}

¶34

Per contra, learned Government^{Pleader for Civil Supplieshas} placed before this Court the Written Instructions,^{under the signatureof} the Additional Collector^{for andon behalf of the 3'd respondent'}

¶35

By the said Written^{Instructions,it is statedthat on receiving a} complaint from the Directors^{of PACS, Cheriyal,the authoritieshave} proceeded to the petitioner mill for^{inspection on 29.09.2021, wherein} they noticed shortage of^{paddy supplied for the purpose of milling by the} respondents and accordingly,^{seized the same. It is further stated therein} that since the explanation^{of the paftnersof the rice mill was not} satisfactory and as the^{petitionerfailed to deliver CMR to FCI and}

¶36

¶37

¶38

contravened the^guidelines of the Government, namely, Telangana Rice (Custom Milling) Order, 2015, Clause 18 of G.O.Ms.No.9, of CA, F&CS, (CS-I), Department, dated 10.10.2020 and Clause 5(8) of Agreement made by the Rice Miller with the District Manager, CSC, the respondents seized 80,833-80 quintals of paddy (79,922-80 quintals of paddy and 620 quintals of boiled rice), worth Rs.15,26,14,214l-, under cover of Panchanama, and a case was booked under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act'), and the said stock was handed over to one Sri J.Jagan of M/s. Ramalingeshwara Paraboiled Rice Industries, Cherial (M), Siddipet District, for safe custody under proper acknowledgment, until fufther orders from the District Collector, Siddipet.

¶39

By the said Written Instructions, the respondents also claim that since the paftners of the petitioner mill were not available, the show cause notices could not be served on the petitioner and its partners. Apart from the above stated facts, it is also stated that a criminal case has been lodged with the Station House Officer, Cherial, vide FIR No.131 of 2021, dated 30.09.2021, against the partners of the petitioner mill.

¶40

8, On 01.12.2021, since it was stated by the learned Government Pleader that the notices under Section 6-8 of the Act could not be served on the petitioner, as the partners of the petitioner mill were avoiding service of the same, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner disputed the said claim made by the respondents. Accordingly, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to make available the copies of notices to be served on the partners of the petitioner mill, to the learned counsel for the petitioner mill. In pursuance thereof, copies of notices, dt.30.09.2021, issued under Section 6-8 of the Act, were handed over to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, numbering to 8, which were to be

¶41

¶42

served on the paties named in the said notices, who are all partners of the petitioner mill.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while disputing the claim of the

¶44

respondents that the patners of the petitioner mill are absconding from receiving the show cause notices, submits that it is always open for the respondents to effect service by sendlng the same through registered post, which they failed to do. It is also contended that the annexure of the said notices, which are mandatorily required to be supplied, are also not forming part of the notice, to enable the petitioner to give effective reply thereto.

¶45

Having regard to the submissions made, as above, and considering the fact that the respondents have issued show cause notices under Section 6-8 of the Act to the partners of the petitioner mill and copies of the same having now been made available to the counsel appearing for the petitioner mill, it is open for the^pafties to offer their explanation to the same. Further, if any of the documents, which are required to be supplied along with the notice issued, are not furnished, the notice can ask the respondents For supplying the same by making a request in this regard.

¶46

As show causes notices are issued to the^partners of the^petitioner mill with regard to the allegations contained therein, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the claim,^this Court^{is of the} view that the petitioner and its^partners can be directed to offer their explanation to the authorities issuing the^{notice,which this Coutt directs} the petitioner to do so. Upon the^petitioner filing its^reply to^{the show} cause notice, dated 30.09.2021, the respondents shall consider^{the same}

¶47

¶48

¶49

in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders thereon, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Since the petitioner claims that on account of the seized paddy supplied by the respondents being exposed to vagaries of nature, which is disputed by the learned Government Pleader, since the said paddy seized has already been shifted, without expressing any view thereon, the respondents are hereby directed to adjudicate into the matter as expeditiously as possible.

¶50

Further, it is also made clear that, on account of the seizure of the CMR paddy supplled by the respondents, the petitioner shall not be precluded from running the mill for milling of other than the CMR paddy.

¶51

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

¶52

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs.

¶53

//TRUE coPY/t

¶54

SD/'K'ONESIM ,/' ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR 60

¶55

SECTION^OFFIGER

¶56

to'r.

¶57

an" Principal^{Secre-tary' Consumer Affairs' Civil Supplies Department'}

¶58

' i;;;i;;Ai, btate of re[ansana' Hvderabad'

¶59

The^{CollectorCivil Supplies' Siddipet district Siddipet}

¶60

The District^{SupplyOfficer' Siddipet district Siddipet}

¶61

The District^{ManagerTerangana state civir suppriescorporation,,Siddipet'}

¶62

The^{DeputyTahsildar, Civil Supplies Department' Siddipet' Siddipet District'}

¶63

One^{CC to Sri A' Prabhakar Rao' AdvocateIOPUC]}

¶64

One^{CC to Sri T'P Acharya} '^{SC for T S C S C (OPUC)}

¶65

8'TwoCCstoGPforCivilSupplies'HighCourtforthestateofTelangana.[oUT]

¶66

Two^{CD CoPies}

¶67

10.One^{SPare CoPY}

lso --8/

HIGH COURT

DATED:0311212021

ORDER

WP.No.30908 ol 2021

4*
'o+ 1$E SlAr
llq
((d
1 4 DEC 2,!21
\ 3n i/+i

¶74

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶75

WITHOUT COSTS

M/s.Sri Renuka Paraboiled Industries, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Sri Renuka Paraboiled Industries, v. The State of Telangana

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

Praja Pata Shala Educational Society Vs The District Registrar Officer and 2 Others

S. Pandu Ranga Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

Sri Darshanala Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Karri , Perumalla Muthyalamma Vs Narayana Nataraja

Mr. Parvatreddy Rohit Reddy Vs M/S. Vasavi Homes Private Limited

G. Sunitha Vs State of Telangana