Allowed

M/s. S. K Industries Cotton Merchant and Commission Agent v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Oct 2024WP/32011/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cotton supplier sought payment of dues from a liquidated cooperative spinning mill. The court set aside a fresh order that verbatim reproduced an earlier order already quashed by a coordinate bench, holding it lacked independent application of mind and reasoned defence, and directed a fresh reasoned order after personal hearing within fixed timelines.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 12.10.2023 set aside; respondent No.4 directed to pass fresh reasoned order on representation dated 07.10.2023 after personal hearing within 3 weeks, copy within 1 week; no costs.

M/s. S. K Industries Cotton Merchant and Commission… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^340s ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 32011 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. S. K lndustries Cotton Merchant and Commission Agent, Rep by its Proprietor lt/r. R. A Javeed S/o. S. K Ahmed, aged about 48 years, Occ Business, Rt/o. H. No. 3- 1- 98, Ravindra Nagar Colony, Adilabad District, Adilabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principle Secretary lndustries and Commerce (Textiles) Department, Telangana Secretariat at Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Director of Handlooms and Textiles Apparel Export Parks, Government of Telangana 3rd Floor, Chenetha Bhavan, Telangana State, Hyderabad 500001

¶13

3 The Registrar Cooperative Societies for State of Telangana, 3rd Floor, Chenetha Bhavan, Telangana State, Hyderabad 500001.

¶14

The Assistant Director Handlooms and Textiles, cum in charge Managing Director Cooperative Spinning Mill Limited, Manakammathota area, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lMia praying that in 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 to declare action of respondent no.2 in issuing the proceedings vide Rc. No. 5218103- 51 dt. 12. 10.2023 contrary to findings of the order^passed in WP No. 4379 of 2021 dl. 16.08. 2023 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14, 19,21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside tlrc same by directing the respondent No. 2 to pay an amount of Rs. 5,76,04,27'll- by considering the representation dt. 07. 10. 2023, in view of order passed in WP No. 4379 ot 2!21 dt. 16. 08. 2023 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the interest of^justice and equity.

¶17

-7

¶18

lA NO: 1 oF 2023

¶19

Petition under Section.l:1 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petitioir,li',,"'nigi'cor.t nray be preased to direct the respondent No. 2 to p:I_rl amount of Rs."S,ZO,Oa ,2.t11_ by oonsiderinq the representation dt. 07 10. a023, in view of order pur.uo ir' tnlp N"] + ils .f ,bi ot. 16. OB. 2023, pending disposat of the main writ 6;"ti"o"

¶20

Counset for the petitioner: SRI CHANAKYA BASA FOR M,/S. CHANDRASEN LAW OFFICE

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: cp FOR INDUSTRTES COMMERCE

¶22

counser for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: Gp FoR coopERATrVE SOCIETTES

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

¶25

IVRIT PETITION NO. 32011 oF 2023

¶26

Mr. Chanakya Basa, learned counsel representing M/s.Chandrasen Law Office, learned counsel for the pctitioner.

¶27

l,earned Government Pleader for Iodustries and Commerce appcaring lor respondent No. 1 .

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

The admitted facts in the present writ petition would appear from Judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench on 16.0g.2023 in a Writ Petition hled by the peti[ioner herein (W.p.No.43Tg of 2O2t).

¶30

The petitioner is an entity who supplied cotton to the Adilabad Cotton Growers Co-operative Spinning MiUs I_imited lrom the year 1999 onwards. The Spinning Mills issued a cheque for Rs.75,92,62O/- towards the supplies made. The cheque however was dishonoured. The Adilabad Cotton Growers Co_operative Spinning Mills Limited also went into liquidation and was subsequently taken over by the Handlooms and Textiles and Apparel Export ParJ<s, Government of Telangana.

¶31

The proprietor of the petitioncr gave an undertaking on 06.01.2009 agreeing to accept S0% of the dues against rhe outstanding amount of Rs.39,47,288/- towards final settlement in writing for withdrawing the Court cases frled by the petitioner against the respondent No.4. Since the respondent No.4 ciid not releaqe any of the amounts as agreed between the parties to thc

¶32

W.p.No 32A11oJy;;

¶33

)

¶34

of suppry of corton by the pedric,ner to the respondent ;:j"::::)." pe rrrroncr Iilcd W.I).No.4 379 ot 2O2l for de<luction on the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,15,7g,74 uro also for setting aside an order dated 17.o6.2o2ofired by ,n'tre Director ,tf Handlooms and Textile:s and Apparel Export parks ((Hg & AEPs), Telangana, ,-ycr.rabad by u,hich the responden, ,... ' payment ro the petitioner despire dectaring;;:::;;:_":: the petitioner dues amounting to Rs.39, 4Z,2gg/ _. The said writ petition war; fli5p6""6 of by an order datc aside rhe orcrer dared 17.o6.2o2opassed _i.:T:::::", ;:": and directing the re spondent No 2 (The Regisu ar of co-operative Society for the State lf Telangana) to consider thrl representadon of thc pelitioncr. dated 27.0g.2O2Q and to pass appropriirte orders u,ithin 2 weel<s from the date of receipt of the ,:opy of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench.

¶35

The Director of I{andlooms and Textiles anrl Apparel Export Parks, Telangana, Hyderabad passed the impugned 6rder on 12 . 1O.2O23 pursuant to the direction of the Co-ordinate Bench. This order form:; the basis of the present writ petitic,n.

¶36

There are several ; reasons for this court to inrlerfere vrith the impugned order.

¶37

¶38

M8,J w-P No.32011ol2O23

¶39

(

¶40

First and foremost, the impugned order dated l2. tO.2O2l] is a verbatim copy of the earlier order passed by the Director (H&T) & AEPs (the incumbent then) dated 17.06.2020. In fact, there is not a single word or sentence which is different in the impugned orcler. The only difference is the date on which rhe pe[iLroner appearcd for the personal hearing through his Advocate before the Director (respondent No.4). It is indeed surprising that a holder of a public office can reproduce an order after 3 years and not care to changc a single word, phrase or sentence therein. Atthough the Co-ordinate Bench did not direct the respondent No.4 to come to a different conclusion, it was necessary for the respondent No.4 to consider the matter afresh through an inclcpendent application ol mind. This is glaringly absent in the impugned order.

¶41

The second reason is that the impugned order does not contain a single defence for refusing the payment which is duc to the petitioner. The order is vague beside the point and full of irrelevant reasons. The only opinion which comes through is that the petitioner had the temerity to approach the Court contrary to the undertaking given on 06.01.2009. Surprisingty, the impugned order reiterates that the respondent No.4 had agreed to pay 5O% of the petitioner's dues. Admittedly, the answering respondent has not paid a single penny to the petitioner towards the admitted amount. The conduct of the respondent No.4 is even more

¶42

¶43

MB,] W.P-No 32011o12023

¶44

I I ) l l

¶45

shocking in the face of an acknowledgment giv<:n by the erstwhile e nlity of the respondent No.4 on 03.06.1999 c,n the outstanding amount due to the petitioner. 25 years have since passcd and the petitioner has remained unpaid of his legitimate anci admitted d r"".

¶46

The onlv argument made by learned courrsel app,earing for the respondent No.4 is of the undertaking given by the petitioner on 06.0 L2OO9. As discussed above, this undertzrking hzLs become irrelevant in view of the respondent,s continue.d brear:h of the acknowledgement given in 1999 and its failure to ntake any payment towar.ds the balance payments to the petitioner

¶47

Needless to state, a public authority cannot hotd a person/entity 10 ransom only because that persorL has fiIed a writ petition in the rlourt for realising the payments due to it. It is also a lact that thr: litigation would have been laid to rest had the respondent No.4 made the payment in time rvithout taking recourse to sqp6pflp6gs and irrelevant reasons.

¶48

10 As stated erbove, the respondent No.4 has continued o resist making paymen r to the petitioner even rn terms of 50oZ of the payments due.

¶49

, l This Coun is thereforc of. the firm vieu, that the im lugned order dated 12.1O.2023 calls for interference.

¶50

¶51

M8,t w.P No 32011ol2C23

¶52

¶53

i I

¶54

Needless to say that the respondent No.4 shall pass a fresh and reasoned order on the representation made by the petitioner on 07.7O.2023 within 3 weeks from 16. 1O.2024. The order shall be made in consonance with paragraph B of the rcprcsentation and upon giving an opportuniez of personal hearing to the writ petitioner' A copy of the reasoned order shall be made available to the writ petitioner within 1 week from thc date on which thc reasoned order is passed. This Court Iinds it necessary to also state that the interest component in the calculation is based on the period for which the petitioner remained unpaicl. IJencc, the interest component cannot be wishcd a\r,it.as ltasclcss

¶55

W.p.No.3201 I of 2023 is accordingly allowed and disposed of by setting aside the impugnecl order dated 12.10.2023. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶56

Pending miscellan eous applica !iol9., i.f a.,ry, stand closed.

¶57

SD/.S.MALLIKARJUNA ASSISTANT REGI

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The State of Telanoana, Rep by its principle Secretary lndustries and Commerce (Textite-s) oepartmdni,ieii"EliJSJii.tariar ar Hyderabad.

¶62

2' The Director of Handrooms and rext,es Apparer Export parks, Government of Tetangana 3rd Floor, Chenetha Bh;;;;,'T!-e"dn;ril strt , Hyderabad 500001

¶63

The Reqistrar Coooerative SocFties for State of Telangana, 3rd Floor. Chenetha Bhavan,' Tetangana stite, ivo,jr"oJi sbooor .

¶64

The Assistant Director Handlooms and Textiles, cum in charge Managing Director coope rative s "inn ing fii'il L i"itt"i, iiir""?iril m marhora a rea, Karimnagar District, KarimnJla;.^{- "}

¶65

One CC to M/S. CHANDRASEN LAW OFFTCES Advocate tOpUCI 6. TWO CCS tO GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE ,High COU( f.rThE STATE Of Telangana. [OUT]

¶66

I I

¶67

7 Two CCs to Gp for Cooperative Societies, H i gh Court lor the State of Telangana at Fyderabad'. tOUfi^{- - - -' -v' I r ,r i vvvrr}

¶68

8 Two CD Copies; KKS KKS

HIGH COURT

DATED:1411012024

./i,,:. t
I
2 4 [[i 202{
.,

¶73

ORDER

¶74

WP.No.32011 of 2023

¶75

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶76

@orq #il"

M/s. S. K Industries Cotton Merchant and Commission Agent v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. S. K Industries Cotton Merchant and Commission Agent 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samala Vijayalaxmi Vs Kondatla Suguna Devi

Sree Ram Venkateswarlu Vs Challuri Sudarshan

Madishetti Shiva Shankar Vs Samala Sadanandam

M/s. Terrygold (India) Limited, Vs The Appellate Authority for Industrial and

Kesa Prabhakar, Vs The Union of India

Rep. by Bifr.. Vs M/s. Terrygold (India) Ltd.