CWP No.4994 of 2009 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C. W. P. No. 4994 of 2009
Date of Decision: 14 - 10 - 2009
M/s B.I.D. Rice Mills ....Petitioner
v.
Food Corporation of India and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
***
Present: Mr.Gurminder Singh, Advocate and
Mr.Aman Bansal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.O.P.Goyal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr.Hari Pal Verma, Advocate and
Mr.Varun Sharma, Advocate
for respondents No.1 to 4.
Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl.A.G., Punjab
for respondent No.5.
***
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Counsel for the petitioner during course of argument has
projected that petitioner is aggrieved against the decision of respondent to
circulate name of petitioner’s mill in black list, for denying allotment of
paddy for milling in future and has prayed that communications Annexures
P9 and P12, which express intention of respondents to this effect be
quashed.
CWP No.4994 of 2009 [2]
Petitioner has referred to Annexure P6, agreement arrived at
between the petitioner and Department of Food, Civil Supplies and
Consumer Affairs, Punjab. Clause 6(g)(vii) of the agreement read as
under:-
“6(g)(vii) If a Police/Court case/arbitration case is pending
against the miller on account of embezzlement
relating to custom milling or levy Rice pertaining
to any crop year. However, if the miller clears the
default of the concerned agency along with penal
interest at the rates for the relevant year(s), he may
be considered for allotment without prejudice to
the outcome of the F.I.R./Court Case/Arbitration
Case pending against him.”
It is submitted that petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the entire
amount of default along with penal interest to Food Corporation of India
(hereinafter to be referred as, `FCI’). It is contended that the above said
provision make it crystal clear that even if a case FIR is registered, Miller
can continue to mill the paddy at the discretion of the allotment agency who
on behalf of FCI allot paddy. It is submitted that the petitioner has a right to
be considered for allotment of paddy even after registration of the FIR.
Mr.O.P.Goyal, senior counsel appearing for the FCI has stated
that CBI had recommended that for supplying rice beyond the prescribed
limit under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and below rejection limit,
miller be black-listed. Referring to Clause 6(g)(vii) of the agreement,
Mr.Goyal has submitted that it only vest right in the miller to be considered
for future allotment of paddy. Whether to allot future work of milling or not
CWP No.4994 of 2009 [3]
is the absolute discretion of the FCI.
To controvert this, Mr.Gurminder Singh has submitted that the
object of Clause 6(g)(vii) is that infrastructure created for the milling should
not go waste and remain idle. Therefore, allotment agency or FCI can
evolve strict regulatory mechanism to ward off any future default on the part
of the miller.
Counsel appearing for the state agencies in connected matters
have contended that on behalf of the FCI, state agencies only allot paddy for
purposes of milling and final authority vest in FCI and as per the
communication of FCI based on recommendation of CBI, they had decided
not to allot work to the millers.
After hearing counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is
disposed of by observing that in case miller deposit the default amount
along with penal interest, as prescribed in Clause 6((g)(vii) reproduced
above, the authorities who are vested with absolute discretion, may
consider claim of the petitioner for allotment of work in future. It is
clarified that default amount along with penal interest is to be deposited to
the satisfaction of the FCI. The petitioner may approach the FCI for making
the payment of the amount due, in case such a request is made, the FCI shall
communicate to the petitioner, the amount which petitioner is liable to pay
within two weeks.
( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA )
October 14, 2009. JUDGE
RC