IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOS.484-500 OF 2018 (GM-EC) BETWEEN:
1. SRI MAHADESHWAR RICE MILL GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD T NARASIPURA MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI B N MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 2. SRI MAHADESHWAR AGRO RICE TECH TAYUR ROAD, T NARASIPUR MYSORE DISTRICT-571101 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI B N MADEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 3. SEEMA RICE INDUSTRIES MAIN ROAD, RANGACHARI HUNDI T NARASIPUR MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI FIYAZ AHAMED AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 4. KHAN FOOD SUPPLIERS C/O M K RICE INDUSTRIES RANGANATHPUR T NARASIPUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI IMRAN AHMED KHAN AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 5. SUBRAMANYA AGRO INDUSTRIES ALGUD LIMIT NANJANGUD ROAD T NARASIPUR MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 124 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI S MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 6. SAGAR ENTERPRISE C/O BASAVESHWAR MODERN RICE MILL M M ROAD, CHAMANAHALLI T NARASIPUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIEOTR SRI AKBAR AHMED AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 7. FIYAZ ENTERPRISE C/O B S K RICE INDUSTRIES K E B ROAD, BANNUR BANNUR TOWN – 571 101 MYSORE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI KAUSER AHMED AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 8. SRI KRISHNA MODERN BINNY MILL MAREGOWDANA HALLI BANNUR TOWN – 571 101 T NARASIPUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI HOMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 9. ESHWAR TRADERS NO.2406/227 C/O N R RICE MILL COMPOUND M.M.ROAD, BANNUR BANNUR TOWN – 571 101 T NARASIPUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI B H MAHESH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 10. SRI MANJUNATHESHWAR RICE GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD VIVEKNANDANAGAR T NARASIPUR – 571 124 MYSORE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI M P SIDDARAJU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 11. SRI MAHADESWAR MODERN BINNY RICE MILL NO.597, 560 MUDDABEERANA HUNDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI T NARASIPUR – 571 124 MYSORE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI BASAVARAJ B N AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 12. VEERABHADRESHWAR RICE MILL VIVEKANANDA NAGAR BYRAPUR VILLAGE T NARASIPUR – 571 124 MYSORE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI NAGESH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS PROPRIETOR 13. SRI KANAKA RICE INDUSTRIES NANJANGUD ROAD T NARASIPUR – 571 124 MYSORE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI B N SURESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 14. SRI KANAKA MODERN RICE MILL NANJANGUD ROAD T NARASIPUR – 571 124 MYSORE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI B N SURESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 15. SRI TIBBADEVI RICE MILL T.N.PURA TALUK MYSORE DIST – 577 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT MAHADEVAMMA 16. AZGAR ENTERPRISES S R P ROAD BANNUR TOWN – 571 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIEOTR SRI MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 17. SRI MALAI MAHADESHWAR INDUSTRIES, YELAVAR HUNDI T NARASIPUR – 571 101 MYSORE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SMT SUSHEELAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.P. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES NO.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FOOD) MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE – 570 001 4. THE KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, MYSORE DISTRICT MYSORE – 570 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT MANAGER … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SHIVAREDDY, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. G.B. NANDISH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2017 MADE IN ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 HEREIN BEING ARBITRAY, ERRONEOUS AND OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY AND JUSTICE VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri. S. P. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri. V. Shivareddy, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 Sri. G. B. Nandish Gouda, learned counsel for Sri. R. B. Sadasivappa, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
These petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
2. In these petitions, the petitioners inter alia have prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 22.08.2017 passed by respondent No.1. The petitioners also seek a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.4 to make payment of the Bills submitted by the petitioners along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of these writ petitions briefly stated are that on 26.08.2014, the Government of Karnataka has passed an order notifying the purpose and the procedure for procuring hulling work for paddy from Rice Mill Owners for the year 2013-14 at the lowest price. Thereafter, official memorandums were issued on 24.02.2015 and 28.02.2015. An agreement was entered into between one of the similarly placed Rice Owner and the respondent-Corporation regarding hulling work of the paddy supplied to the petitioners.
4. The petitioners submitted the representation to respondent No.2 on 16.04.2016 seeking release of hulling charges. Thereafter, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.No.55989/2015, which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court by an order dated 03.06.2016 with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider the representation with regard to transportation charges. The petitioners presented W.P.Nos.56449- 56474/2016, which were disposed of on 18.11.2016. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 22.08.2017 was passed by respondent No.1. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have approached this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners, who were 26 in number had received the notice for appearance before respondent No.1 on 17.08.2017 and on 18.08.2017, without even giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without affording an opportunity of filing the documents, the enquiry proceedings were concluded in a single day and on 22.08.2017 the impugned order has been passed. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the directions issued by this Court in the writ petitions inasmuch as the petitioners were ought to have been granted liberty of filing their statement before respondent No.1.
6. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the petitioners are not entitled for transportation charges as the transportation charges are not claimed under the agreement. But, independently in respect of transportation work done by the petitioners on their own volition in respect of other districts for which no agreement were executed in their favour, transportation charges have been claimed.
7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. A bench of this Court by an order dated 18.11.2016 passed in W.P.Nos.56449-56474/2016 had disposed of the writ petitions permitting the petitioners to file the claim statement before respondent No.1 and directed respondent No.1 to consider the same within a period of six weeks. The petitioners, who were 26 in number, received the notice on 17.08.2017 and enquiry was concluded in a single day i.e., on 18.08.2017. Therefore, the petitioners have neither been afforded an opportunity to file their statement of claim nor they have been heard. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby quashed.
8. The matter is remitted to respondent No.1 for affording an opportunity to file the claim statement of the petitioners and to afford an opportunity of hearing to them and decide the matter in accordance with law.
9. The petitioners undertake to appear along with the statement of claim before respondent No.1 on 27.08.2019. On receipt of statement of objections/claim, respondent No.1 shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and shall decide their claim in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of two months thereafter.
10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and claim of the petitioners. Needless to state that all contentions of the parties are kept open. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-