Disposed

M/s. Sri Ramakrishna Rice Industries, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC11 Sept 2024WP/23985/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rice miller challenged a demand notice said to be contrary to an earlier High Court order; both sides agreed the issue was covered by that order. The court disposed of the writ directing an Enforcement Officer enquiry into bonus amounts paid for 01.04.2007 to 24.04.2007.

What did the court decide?

Writ disposed with direction to Enforcement Officer to enquire within four months into bonus payments (01.04.2007-24.04.2007); if paid, petitioner must transmit them to farmers. No costs.

M/s. Sri Ramakrishna Rice Industries, Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2024)

-.!ar

[³³⁰² ]

.rr

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

¶5

WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTETVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 23985 OF 2014

¶9

Between:

¶10

M/s. Sri Ramakrishna Rice lndustries, Guntur^{Road, Post Gudur Miryalguda-} 508 207 Nalgonta district, Rep. by its Managing^{Partner K. Ramesh}

¶11

,..PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

'1. The District Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda District.

¶14

Agriculture Market Commiftee, Miryalguda, Nalgorda^{District Rep.by its The} Deputy Director of Marketing,^(OD) Upper-Grade^Secretary,

¶15

The Government of Telangana, Civil Supplies^{Department,Secretarlat,} Saifabad, Hyderabad Rep. by its Secretary

¶16

Union of lnilia, Ministry'of Food and Public^{Distribution Department, Krishl} Bhavan, New Delhi, Rep. by its Secretary

¶17

...RES'ONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 o'f the Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more^particularly oneⁱⁿ the^{nature of} writ of mandamus declaring the^{proceedings of the l st respondentin Procgs.No} CS1/l805/2007 dated 24-2-2014 and^{the consequential demandnotice dated} 21-5-2014 issued by the 2nd respondent^{as being contraryto the orders of'this} Hon'ble High Court daled 29-10-2012^{in W.P.No.2590'1 of 2007 and batch,} violative of principles of natural^{justiceand an orderin nullity apart from being} violative of the rights^guaranteed under^{Article 14,1 9(1} )(g)^{and 3004of the} Constitution of lndia

¶19

l.A. NO: 1OF 2014 WPMP. NO: 30034 OF 20141

¶20

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 stay all further proceedirgs pursuant to the demand notice dated 21-5.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. KAMATHAM GOVARDHAN REDDY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&3: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI K. UPENDER REDDY, SC FOR AGRICULTURE MARKET COMMITTEE

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

¶27

THE HONOURABIE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶28

trIRIT PDTITION No.23985 of2O14

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This Writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings No.CSl/ 7805 /2OOZ dated, 24.02.2014 and the consequential demand notice dated 21 .OS.2O\4 issued by the respondent No.2 as being contrary to the orders of this Court dated, 29.10.2012 in W.P.No.259Ot of 2OOT and barch.

¶31

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader for Civil Supplies, Sri Gadi praveen Kumar, Iearned Deputy Solicitor General and the learned standing counsel for Agriculturar Market committee and perused the record

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 29.1O.2012 in W.p.Nso.259Ol of 2OO7 and batch. The learned Assistant Government pleader for Civil Supplics, the learned Deputy Solicitor General and learned Standing Counsel for Agricultural Market Committee did not dispute the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

.,?.

sr,J

1 I t

,:,:

In vreu' o{^{-,he said submission madcby both sides'this} disposed^{of,directingtheconcerned} Writ^{Petition^s} Enforcement^{Olficcr under the Control Order'sha1l condr'tct an} enquiry^{into thr: matter after due uotice to the petitioneralld the} Food^{Corporatior-rof lndia as weil'and det'ermine whetherany} bonus^{amounts were paid to the petitioner for the perio'lfrom} Ol^{.O4 .2OO7 t-c 24 'O4'2OO7 and if it is found that an1- such} payments^{wcr3 made' then the petitioneris directed to transmit} the^{sameto the farmersfrotn whom he had purchasedpaddy'} Such^{enquiry shail be completedwithina period of four months} (4) trom^{the fate of receiptol copy of this orclcr' No ori'er as to}

¶40

costs

¶41

Pendir'g^{miscellaneouspetitions, if anY' in this Criminal} Petitio^{n shall also sta1rd-'qlqs-9d'} SD,^{. A. SRINTV ASA REDDY. /} RAR / ASSISTANT^REGIS N OFFICE^R I'TRUE^COPY'/ SEC

To,

ffiffiffi

BM LS $

<br>

HIGH COURT

DATED:1110912024

tif- ::j l'A r(.
c
o
2 E [lc Zfitll
t,/
/;
-t -r-' ::+*r::.:-_

¶49

ORDER

¶50

WP.No.23985 of 2014

¶51

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS f,r)c1^q"%u

M/s. Sri Ramakrishna Rice Industries, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Sri Ramakrishna Rice Industries, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Balakrishna Distributing Company, Vs Prl.Secy., Agrl. dept., State of T.S.

M/s Premier Plastic Industries Vs State of Telangana

M/S. Premier Plastic Industries Vs State of Telangana

Smt. P. Jyothi Vs The State of Telangana, And 3 Others

Nune Komuraiah Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Parvez Vs The State of Telangana