HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1010 OF 2014 DATED:15.7.2014 Between:
M/s. Padmavathi Industries Rice Mill, Julapalli Village Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar District Rep. by its Managing Partner Sri Erukula Ramesh H. No.21-5-45, Gouthami Nagar Godhavarikhani Karimnagar District … Appellant And The District Collector (Civil Supplies) Karimangar District and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1010 OF 2014 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be admitted against the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge, dt.20.11.2013 in dismissing the writ petition observing that disputed questions of fact between the petitioner and respondents cannot be decided in writ petition.
2. It appears from the writ petition, the writ petitioner sought the relief as follows:
(a) “to declare the action of respondents in not initiating steps to lift 6800 quintals of Paddy from the Petitioner Rice Mill as per the Respondent No.1 Proceedings No.G2/999/2012 dated 15.4.2013 is arbitrary and illegal;
(b) to declare the action of the Respondents restraining the petitioner from functioning of the Rice mill, due to not lifting the stocks from Petitioner Rice Mill from 02.03.2013 onwards is arbitrary and illegal;
(c) to direct the respondents to clear the Custom Milling Rice and Paddy from Petitioner’s Rice Mill so as to allow the petitioner to start milling the Paddy into Rice.
(d) to award damages of Rs.20,000/- per day from 02.03.2013 onwards for not allowing the petitioner to mill the paddy into Rice causing loss of Rs.20,000/- per day.”
3. It appears that the following two factual issues are involved in this matter.
(i) Respondents have alleged to have committed breach in not lifting 6,800/- quintals of paddy from the petitioner rice mill as per the orders of respondent No.1 dt.15.4.2013: and
(ii) The restraint order of the respondents from functioning of the rice mill due to not lifting the stocks from the petitioner’s rice mill from 2.3.2013.
4. Allegations have been made as to bad quality of rice as reason for not-lifting the stock. However, such fact has been denied. In any event, this relates to disputed questions of fact and we cannot find out which version is correct in writ jurisdiction.
5. As far as the restraint order is concerned, the learned trial Judge has recorded that the respondents authorities have not seized the rice mill. The allegation of preventing the petitioner from running the rice mill is also denied.
6. In view of the aforesaid disputed questions of fact and claim for damages for alleged breach of orders of respondents authorities, cannot be adjudicated. However, taking note of the statement and averment of the respondents’ authorities in their affidavit, we are of the view that the appellant – writ petitioner has no difficulty to run the mill as the respondents have taken steps not preventing the petitioner from running the mill, in accordance with law. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge.
7. Hence, we dismiss the appeal. There will be no order as to costs.
Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 15.7.2014 bnr