WP/23864/2004 of Sri Balaji PBMR Pvt.Limited, Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer (Civil Supplies), on 27 December 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO : 23864 of 2004

Between:

Sri Balaji PBMR Pvt.Limited, Miryalaguda, rep., by its Managing Director Shri GouruSrinivas, s/o Laxmi Pathi, r/o H.No.18-1104, Ashok Nagar, Miryalguda, NalgondaDistrict.

..... PETITIONER

AND

1 The Mandal Revenue Officer (Civil Supplies), Miryalguda Mandal, NalgondaDistrict.

2 The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Nalgonda.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue preferably a writ in the nature of certiorari or any appropriate writ calling forrecords pertaining to the proceedings No.CS1/2048/2003, dt.13-12-2004 passed byrespondent No.2 and quash the same.

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.RAJASEKHAR REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER:

The petitioner is a rice mill. Apart from its activity, it supplies rice to FoodCorporation of India and other agencies towards levy. Through the order dated 13-12-2004, the second respondent blacklisted the petitioner for the year 2004-2005.The same is challenged in this writ petition.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for CivilSupplies.

The second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 12-10-2004 to thepetitioner calling upon to show cause as to why it should not be blacklisted in thematter of participating in the Mill Levy. The allegation against the petitioner was thatin an inspection conducted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Miryalaguda, the firstrespondent, on 12-10-2004, it was noticed that there was a discrepancy of raw ricein an extent of 120 quintals and thereby, the petitioner is presumed to have indulgedin clandestine activities. The petitioner submitted its explanation on 01-11-2004,wherein, it was stated that it received the quantity of rice, referred to above, fromanother dealer and even before the stock was entered into the register, theinspection took place and a presumption was drawn. The first respondent was notconvinced with this explanation and passed the impugned order.

Even from a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the petitioner was dealing with huge quantities of paddy and rice. According to the openingbalance of the stock register, the petitioner was holding paddy of 8426 quintals. Onphysical verification, it was found to be accurate so was the case with 595 quintalsof boiled rice and 120 quintals of broken rice. The discrepancy is about 120 quintalsof raw rice. The petitioner categorically stated in its explanation that it received thesaid quantity of rice from another dealer by name M/s. Tallam Ashok Grains andGeneral Merchants. It is settled principle of law that a dealer is entitled to makeentries in relation to the stocks maintained by it at the end of the day. Discrepanciescannot be pointed out on the basis of inspections conducted during the course of theday. They are not supposed to enter every quantity as and when received or put tomilling, etcetera. At any rate, with the repeal of the various control orders in the year2002, there do not exist any restrictions on stocking or transport of paddy and rice.The petitioner is not supplied with any commodities by the Government for publicdistribution. When there is no control as to stocking or transport and when the effortof the petitioner is to offer Levy, the allegation that it is indulging in clandestinebusiness, is,in a way self-contradictory.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugnedorder is set aside. The petitioner shall be accorded the same treatment as others inthe matter of Mill Levy for the season 2004-2005. No order as to costs.

________________

27-12-2004

Note: Issue C.C. by one week

(B/0)

kdl

To

1 The Mandal Revenue Officer (Civil Supplies), Miryalguda Mandal, NalgondaDistrict.

2 The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies), Nalgonda.

3 Two C.Cs. to the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, High Court Buildings,A.P., Hyderbaa, (OUT).A.P., Hyderbaa, (OUT).

4 Two C.D. Copies.