THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.39498 of 2014 Between:
Dated 26th December, 2014 Aditya Modern Rice Mill And …Petitioner State of A.P., rep.by its Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Deparment, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 4: AGP for Civil Supplies (AP) Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3: Sri A.Ravinder Reddy The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside urgent notice bearing No.115/14B, dated Nil.09.2014, of respondent No.4, whereby he has called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,32,847/- towards the value of the CMR rice allegedly not delivered by the petitioner for the kharif season 2012-13.
It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that during the inspection of the petitioner’s mill, rice and paddy were seized and that the seized rice included the CMR rice as well. It is further stated that the CMR rice was excluded from the proceedings under Section6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) and that accordingly, the custodian to whom the seized rice was entrusted pending proceedings under Section 6-A of the Act, has sent the CMR rice to respondent No.3 on the instructions of respondent N.4. That notwithstanding receipt of CMR rice, a demand for Rs.5,72,903/- was made and that the petitioner has paid Rs.4,40,056/- out of the said demanded amount under protest. That not being satisfied with the said payment, respondent No.4 has again issued the impugned notice.
The grievance of the petitioner is that as the balance amount has not been paid, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have withheld allotment of custom milling paddy for the Kharif Marketing Season (KMS) 2014-15.
At the hearing, Sri A.Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3-Corporation, has stated that client has not received the CMR rice from the custodian as alleged by the petitioner.
Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as non-payment of Rs.1,32,847/- is being shown as the reason for non-allotment of paddy for custom milling for KMS 2014-15, his client will pay the said amount without prejudice to its right to seek refund of the entire amount of Rs.5,72,903/-.
In the light of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to pay Rs.1,32,847/- (Rupees one lakh thirty two thousand eight hundred and forty seven only) representing the value of the CMR rice which was allegedly not handed over to respondent No.3 by the lessees of the petitioner for Kharif season 2012-13, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to claim refund of Rs.5,72,903/-. On such payment, respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall consider allotment of custom milling paddy for the KMS 2014-15.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.49544 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th December, 2014
VGB