This Writ Petition has been filed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned notice passed by the first respondent, vide his proceedings, in Na.Ka.No.B1/2691/08, dated 17.9.2009, and quash the same and to, consequently, direct the first respondent to allot paddy pursuant to the order of authorisation to act as a Hulling Agent granted, vide proceedings in Rc.B.1/9508/2005, dated 15.7.2005, which had been subsequently modified, in Na.Ka.No.B1/13094/06, dated 27.12.2006.
2. It has been stated that the petitioner is the proprietor of a Rice Mill, by name, Rajadurai Karthick Modern Rice Mill, Madurai. The said Rice Mill has been running for the past two decades. However, in the impugned notice issued by the first respondent, vide his Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.B1/2691/08, dated 17.9.2009, the supply of paddy to the petitioner's mill has been stopped.
3. It has also been stated that as per Order 9(5) of the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation) Order, 1984, the first respondent is empowered to give authorisation to the Rice Mill, for the purpose of converting the paddy into rice, by hulling. For getting such authorisation, the rice mill owners are expected to satisfy the requirements sought for by the concerned Senior Regional Manager attached to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation.
4. It has also been stated that in the case of the petitioner mill, the said authorisation as a Hulling Agent had been granted, on 15.7.2005, by the first respondent for allotment of 106 Metric Tonnes of paddy. Thereafter, on the request of the petitioner, the quantity of allotment had been increased to 160 Metric Tonnes, by an order, dated 5.8.2005, and thereafter, it had been increased to 210 Metric Tonnes and subsequently, it was increased to 750 Metric Tonnes by an order of the first respondent, dated 27.12.2006.
5. It has also been stated that at the time of the granting of the said authorisation, on 15.7.2005, an agreement had been entered into between the first respondent and the petitioner, wherein several conditions had been incorporated. The petitioner had been complying with all the conditions found in the agreement. While so, in the year, 2006, the petitioner had expanded his rice mill by importing certain machines from various countries, at huge costs.
6. The petitioner had been carrying on his business without any hurdle. However, on 8.8.2009, the Tahsildar attached to the Civil Supplies Corporation, had visited the petitioner's rice mill and had made an inspection. After the completion of the inspection, he had concluded, inspite of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, that there were 350 kilograms of boiled rice, in excess and that the said rice could be from the Public Distribution System. Thereafter, the said Tahsildar forwarded a report to the second respondent. Based on the said report, the impugned order had been passed by the first respondent proposing to cancel the authorisation granted to the petitioner as a Hulling Agent and asking the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be blacklisted. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner had submitted an explanation, on 28.9.2009, which had been acknowledged by the first respondent. The impugned notice, dated 17.9.2009, had been issued by the first respondent under the impression that the boiled rice weighing 350 kgs, which had been allegedly found in the petitioner's mill, had been stocked by him, violating the conditions imposed by the first respondent, while granting the authorisation as a Hulling Agent.
7. The petitioner has submitted that even though a final order has not been passed pursuant to the notice, dated 17.9.2009, issued by the first respondent, the supply of paddy to the petitioner mill has been stopped by the respondents. Since the petitioner had invested huge amounts of money in establishing the rice mill, the respondents are expected to maintain continuous supply of paddy to the petitioner mill for the purpose of hulling in accordance with the conditions specified in the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the first respondent, However, due to stoppage of supply of paddy to the petitioner mill, the petitioner mill has been put to irreparable monetary loss. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition before this court, under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned notice of the first respondent, dated 17.9.2009, praying for the relief, as stated in the Writ Petition.
8. Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned notice, dated 17.9.2009, issued by the first respondent is in violation of the principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction. It has been stated that the first respondent had directly cancelled the authorisation of the petitioner mill to act as a Hulling Agent, which had been granted in his favour, as per Order 9(5) of the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation) Order, 1984.
9. It has also been stated that as per Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation) Order, 1984, the first respondent has not been empowered to blacklist any Hulling Agent. Further, the petitioner had submitted an explanation to the first respondent, pursuant to the notice, dated 17.9.2009, explaining the reasons for the presence of 350 kgs of boiled rice in the premises of the petitioner mill. However, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the authorities had reported the matter to the second respondent for taking further action and consequently, the impugned order was passed by the first respondent. In such circumstances, the petitioner had prayed that the respondents should maintain regular supply of paddy to the petitioner mill to carry on its hulling activities, as agreed to in the agreement, dated 15.7.2005.
10. Per contra, Mr.R.Janakiramulu, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the first respondent had acted on the instructions of the second respondent. The Learned Special Government Pleader had also submitted that the 350 kgs of boiled rice found in the premises of the petitioner mill belongs to the Public Distribution System, as per the Quality Certificate issued by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Madurai Region.
11. The learned counsel had also submitted that the paddy, that had to be supplied to the petitioner mill, was for the Tarrif Marketing season, from 1.10.2008 to 30.9.2009 and that had already been supplied. Since there is no paddy available, at present, the respondents are not supplying paddy to hulling agents, including the petitioner mill. It has also been stated that the petitioner mill has not been blacklisted, till date, since no final order has been passed pursuant to the notice issued by the respondent, dated 17.9.2009. Further, it has also been submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader that there is no impediment for the respondents to supply the paddy, as and when it is available, to the petitioner mill, pursuant to the notice, dated 17.9.2009.
12. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, without going into the merits of the matter, since no final order has been passed against the petitioner mill pursuant to the impugned notice, dated 17.9.2009, issued by the first respondent, the respondents are directed to supply the agreed quantity of paddy to the petitioner mill for the Tariff Marketing Season starting from 1.10.2009, unless and until, an adverse order is passed against the petitioner mill. However, if final orders are passed against the petitioner, it would be open to him to challenge the same in the manner known to law.
13. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
asvm To
1.The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Madurai.
2.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.