IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.58881/2014 (GM-EC) BETWEEN:
B S K RICE INDUSTRIES MAHARAJAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIMOGA ROAD, HARIHARA-5777601 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT BY ITS PARTNER, SRI.B.SYED KHALEEL AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
(BY SRI T BASAVARAJ, ADV. ) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, NO.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560052.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE-577006.
4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD., ... PETITIONER NO.16/1, MILLER TANK BED AREA, BANGALORE-560052.
5. THE DISTRICT MANAGER KARNATAKA FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD., DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE-577006.
(BY SRI A C BALARAJ, HCGP. FOR R1-3 SRI H G VASANTH KUMAR, ADV. FOR R4 SRI G B NANDISH GOWDA, ADV. FOR SRI R B SADASHIVAPPA, ADVS. FOR R5) ... RESPONDENTS THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE R-1 DATED 27.09.2014 VIDE ANNEX-D AND ALSO QUASH THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R-2 DATED 31.12.2013 VIDE ANNEX-E AND QUASH THE LETTER DATED 30.10.2014 ISSUED BY THE R-5 VIDE ANNEX-F AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court assailing the communication dated 27.09.2014 at Annexure-D and also to quash the Circular issued by respondent No.2 dated 31.12.2013. Further the petitioner is seeking that the letter dated 30.10.2014 issued by respondent No.5 at Annexure-F be quashed. In that light, a mandamus is sought to direct respondent No.5 to pay the balance amount on the levy rice surrendered by the petitioner as per the levy price fixed as at Annexure-A with interest at 12.5% p.a.
2. The petitioner is a sawmill owner carrying on business in Rice and Paddy as per the Karnataka Rice Milling (Regulation) Rice and Paddy Procurement Levy Order , 1999. The respondents had issued a notification for procurement of levy rice from the rice mill owners in the year 2013-14. The petitioner contends that they had surrendered 1080 quintals of levy rice as levy before respondent No.5. It is in respect of the same, the petitioner is seeking for payment of support price.
3. Though several contentions are urged, in the instant petition, the details of the same need not be adverted to inasmuch as the very issue that is raised in the instant petition seeking minimum support price had been considered by this Court in W.P.No.1354/2015. This Court through the order dated 10.09.2015 taking note of similar contentions of all the parties had arrived at the conclusion that the bonus that is payable would be based on the MSP Certificate that would be filed by the rice mill owner along with necessary documents. In that light, this Court on arriving at such conclusion had directed consideration of the representation and if the petitioner had produced or would produce the MSP Certificate, the bonus/additional amount payable was ordered to be considered.
4. In the background of the decision taken therein, in several other writ petitions also, a direction was issued to keep in abeyance the notices issued therein and to consider the representation of the petitioner therein. In that view, a direction is issued to the respondents to keep in abeyance the notice dated 27.09.2014 and the order dated 30.10.2014. The petitioner is granted the liberty of filing the representation enclosing the MSP certificate with respondent No.5 who shall thereupon examine the MSP Certificate and if it is found that the same is in order, appropriate orders shall be made to withdraw the notice impugned herein and recommend for withdrawal of the order and also consider the payment of the balance amount to the petitioner.
5. Needless to mention that if the MSP certificates sought to be relied upon by the petitioner does not satisfy the requirement, appropriate orders in that regard be made. If such consideration is against the petitioner and if any order passed is against the case as pleaded by the petitioner, while assailing such action, the petitioner is also granted the liberty of assailing the impugned notice. The decision in any event shall be taken by respondents No. 4 and 5 as expeditiously as possible, but not later than two months from the date on which the representation along with MSP Certificate is produced by the petitioner.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE hrp/bms