Telangana High Court

WP/23992/2004 of M/s. Shobha Rice and Oil Mill, Vs The District Collector (C.S), on 27 December 2004

Cites 0, Cited by 0

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23992 of 2004 Between: M/s. Shobha Rice and Oil Mill, Huzurabad, Karimnagar

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

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 REDDYWRIT PETITION NO : 23992 of 2004

Between:

M/s. Shobha Rice and Oil Mill, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District. Rep. by itsProprietor, Sheela Raja Mouli, S/o. Raja Veeru, aged about 72 Years, occ:Business, R/o. Huzurabad, Karimnagar District.

..... PETITIONER

AND

1 The District Collector (C.S), Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

2 The District Supply Officer, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

3 The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

.....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 a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ ofMandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in refusing to accept Mill Levyfrom the Petitioner Rice Mill even though the Rice offered by the Petitioner towardsMill Levy is within standard specification prescribed by the 3rd respondent, on theground that the W.P.No. 14590/2002 filed by the petitioner is dismissed by thisHonourable Court by Order Dated 15-04-2003 as illegal, arbitrary.

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.PRABHAKAR RAO

Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

Counsel for Respondent No.3: Mr.B.Anjaneyulu, S.C. for F.C.I.

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

The grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent is not accepting the riceoffered by it, towards Mill Levy. It is alleged that though the petitioner fulfilled all therequirements and conformed to the specifications, the third respondent is notaccepting the rice.

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

At the admission stage, the matter was adjourned to enable the learned standingcounsel for the third respondent to obtain instructions.

Sri B.Anjaneyulu, learned standing counsel for the third respondent, submits thatrefusal by the Food Corporation of India (for short the ‘FCI’) to accept the rice offeredby the petitioner was on the ground that it failed to produce the certificates to theeffect that it paid minimum support price to the farmers, while purchasing the paddy.The only objection raised by the third respondent for receiving the paddy from thepetitioner is that the petitioner did not produce the certificates to prove that it paid theminimum support price to the farmers. The FCI has undertaken purchase of rice onlywith a view to ensure that the farmers are paid the minimum support price and thereis no accumulation of stock with them. By its very nature, the paddy has to be routedto the F.C.I. through the rice millers, after conversion of the same into rice. Unlessthe farmers, who supply the paddy, are paid the minimum support price, the F.C.I.cannot be compelled to purchase the result rice.

The petitioner contends that respondents 1 and 2, who are empowered to issuesuch certificates, are not issuing the same.

Hence, the writ petition is allowed directing that as and when the petitionerapproaches respondents 1 and 2 for issuance of MSP certificates, they shallexamine the matter and issue such certificates without further delay, on beingsatisfied about payment of the MSP. The third respondent, in turn, shall be underobligation to accept the Mill Levy from the petitioner, if, the levy covered by MSPcertificates. No order as to costs.

________________

27-12-2004

Note: Issue C.C. by three days.

(B/o)

kdl

To

1 The District Collector (C.S), Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

2 The District Supply Officer, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

3 The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Karimnagar, KarimnagarDistrict.District.

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

5 Two C.D. Copies.

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead