BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23/10/2009
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
Writ Petition (MD) No.10605 of 2009
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2009
D.Chockanathan .. Petitioner
vs.
1.The Senior Regional Manager,
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation,
Madurai.
2.The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai. .. Respondents
The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for a Writ of Mandamus to call for the entire records pertaining
to the impugned notice passed by the first respondent vide his proceedings in
Na.Ka.No.B1/2691/08 dated 17.9.2009 and quash the same and consequently, direct
the first respondent to allot paddy pursuant to the order of authorisation to
act as a Hulling Agent passed through his proceedings in Rc.B.1/9508/2005 dated
15.7.2005 which was subsequently modified in Na.Ka.No.B1/13094/06 dated
27.12.2006.
!For petitioner ... Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.R.Anand
^For respondents... Mr.R.Janakiramulu,
Spl.Govt.Pleader
:ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to
call for the records pertaining to the impugned notice passed by the first
respondent, vide his proceedings, in Na.Ka.No.B1/2691/08, dated 17.9.2009, and
quash the same and to, consequently, direct the first respondent to allot paddy
pursuant to the order of authorisation to act as a Hulling Agent granted, vide
proceedings in Rc.B.1/9508/2005, dated 15.7.2005, which had been subsequently
modified, in Na.Ka.No.B1/13094/06, dated 27.12.2006.
2. It has been stated that the petitioner is the proprietor of a Rice
Mill, by name, Rajadurai Karthick Modern Rice Mill, Madurai. The said Rice Mill
has been running for the past two decades. However, in the impugned notice
issued by the first respondent, vide his Proceedings in Na.Ka.No.B1/2691/08,
dated 17.9.2009, the supply of paddy to the petitioner’s mill has been stopped.
3. It has also been stated that as per Order 9(5) of the Tamil Nadu
Essential Trade Articles (Regulation) Order, 1984, the first respondent is
empowered to give authorisation to the Rice Mill, for the purpose of converting
the paddy into rice, by hulling. For getting such authorisation, the rice mill
owners are expected to satisfy the requirements sought for by the concerned
Senior Regional Manager attached to the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation.
4. It has also been stated that in the case of the petitioner mill, the
said authorisation as a Hulling Agent had been granted, on 15.7.2005, by the
first respondent for allotment of 106 Metric Tonnes of paddy. Thereafter, on
the request of the petitioner, the quantity of allotment had been increased to
160 Metric Tonnes, by an order, dated 5.8.2005, and thereafter, it had been
increased to 210 Metric Tonnes and subsequently, it was increased to 750 Metric
Tonnes by an order of the first respondent, dated 27.12.2006.
5. It has also been stated that at the time of the granting of the said
authorisation, on 15.7.2005, an agreement had been entered into between the
first respondent and the petitioner, wherein several conditions had been
incorporated. The petitioner had been complying with all the conditions found
in the agreement. While so, in the year, 2006, the petitioner had expanded his
rice mill by importing certain machines from various countries, at huge costs.
6. The petitioner had been carrying on his business without any hurdle.
However, on 8.8.2009, the Tahsildar attached to the Civil Supplies Corporation,
had visited the petitioner’s rice mill and had made an inspection. After the
completion of the inspection, he had concluded, inspite of the explanation
submitted by the petitioner, that there were 350 kilograms of boiled rice, in
excess and that the said rice could be from the Public Distribution System.
Thereafter, the said Tahsildar forwarded a report to the second respondent.
Based on the said report, the impugned order had been passed by the first
respondent proposing to cancel the authorisation granted to the petitioner as a
Hulling Agent and asking the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be
blacklisted. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner had submitted an
explanation, on 28.9.2009, which had been acknowledged by the first respondent.
The impugned notice, dated 17.9.2009, had been issued by the first respondent
under the impression that the boiled rice weighing 350 kgs, which had been
allegedly found in the petitioner’s mill, had been stocked by him, violating the
conditions imposed by the first respondent, while granting the authorisation as
a Hulling Agent.
7. The petitioner has submitted that even though a final order has not
been passed pursuant to the notice, dated 17.9.2009, issued by the first
respondent, the supply of paddy to the petitioner mill has been stopped by the
respondents. Since the petitioner had invested huge amounts of money in
establishing the rice mill, the respondents are expected to maintain continuous
supply of paddy to the petitioner mill for the purpose of hulling in accordance
with the conditions specified in the agreement entered into between the
petitioner and the first respondent, However, due to stoppage of supply of
paddy to the petitioner mill, the petitioner mill has been put to irreparable
monetary loss. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition
before this court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging
the impugned notice of the first respondent, dated 17.9.2009, praying for the
relief, as stated in the Writ Petition.
8. Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned notice, dated 17.9.2009,
issued by the first respondent is in violation of the principles of natural
justice and without jurisdiction. It has been stated that the first respondent
had directly cancelled the authorisation of the petitioner mill to act as a
Hulling Agent, which had been granted in his favour, as per Order 9(5) of the
Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation) Order, 1984.
9. It has also been stated that as per Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu
Essential Trade Articles (Regulation) Order, 1984, the first respondent has not
been empowered to blacklist any Hulling Agent. Further, the petitioner had
submitted an explanation to the first respondent, pursuant to the notice, dated
17.9.2009, explaining the reasons for the presence of 350 kgs of boiled rice in
the premises of the petitioner mill. However, without considering the
explanation submitted by the petitioner, the authorities had reported the matter
to the second respondent for taking further action and consequently, the
impugned order was passed by the first respondent. In such circumstances, the
petitioner had prayed that the respondents should maintain regular supply of
paddy to the petitioner mill to carry on its hulling activities, as agreed to in
the agreement, dated 15.7.2005.
10. Per contra, Mr.R.Janakiramulu, the learned Special Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that the first respondent
had acted on the instructions of the second respondent. The Learned Special
Government Pleader had also submitted that the 350 kgs of boiled rice found in
the premises of the petitioner mill belongs to the Public Distribution System,
as per the Quality Certificate issued by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies
Corporation Ltd., Madurai Region.
11. The learned counsel had also submitted that the paddy, that had to be
supplied to the petitioner mill, was for the Tarrif Marketing season, from
1.10.2008 to 30.9.2009 and that had already been supplied. Since there is no
paddy available, at present, the respondents are not supplying paddy to hulling
agents, including the petitioner mill. It has also been stated that the
petitioner mill has not been blacklisted, till date, since no final order has
been passed pursuant to the notice issued by the respondent, dated 17.9.2009.
Further, it has also been submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader
that there is no impediment for the respondents to supply the paddy, as and when
it is available, to the petitioner mill, pursuant to the notice, dated
17.9.2009.
12. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, without going into the
merits of the matter, since no final order has been passed against the
petitioner mill pursuant to the impugned notice, dated 17.9.2009, issued by the
first respondent, the respondents are directed to supply the agreed quantity of
paddy to the petitioner mill for the Tariff Marketing Season starting from
1.10.2009, unless and until, an adverse order is passed against the petitioner
mill. However, if final orders are passed against the petitioner, it would be
open to him to challenge the same in the manner known to law.
13. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
asvm
To
1.The Senior Regional Manager,
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation,
Madurai.
2.The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.