BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08/09/2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition(MD)No.11590 of 2010 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2010 D.Chockanathan .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Madurai. 2. The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai. .. Respondents Prayer Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to supply the paddy to the petitioner as per the agreement entered with the first respondent and in pursuant to the proceedings in R.c.B.1/9508/2005 dated 15.07.2005 which was subsequently modified in Na.Ka.No.B1/13094/06 dated 27.12.2006. !For petitioner ... Mr.K.M.Vijayan for Mr.R.Anand ^For respondents ... Mr.K.M.Vijayakumar Special Govt. Pleader :ORDER
By consent of both the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for
final hearing and disposal.
2. During the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner had placed before this Court, the order passed by
this Court, on 19.08.2010, in W.P.(MD).No.9214 of 2010. Paragraph 19 of the said
order reads as follows:
“19. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order
passed by the first respondent, before ever a final order was passed by the
second respondent in the proceedings under Section 6(A) of the Act, is quashed
and as a consequence, the authorisation given to the petitioner by the first
respondent and the contract entered into between the petitioner and first
respondent shall be in operation.”
3. From the above paragraph, it is clear that the first respondent shall
keep the contract of supplying of paddy to the petitioner, for the purpose of
hulling, till the disposal of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner,
under Section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities Act. However, it has been
pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that
the first respondent had stopped supplying paddy to the petitioner, in view of
the pendency of the proceedings, under Section 6(A) of the Essential Commodities
Act.
4. Considering the order passed by this Court, on 19.08.2010, in
W.P.(MD).No.9214 of 2010, it is clear that the first respondent should keep the
contract of supplying paddy to the petitioner, for the purpose of hulling, in
operation. However, it would be open to the first respondent to take appropriate
action, as per law, after the completion of the enquiry initiated by the first
respondent, against the petitioner, under Section 6(A) of the Essential
Commodities Act.
5. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to supply paddy to the
petitioner, for hulling, as per the terms of the contract till final orders are
passed in the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, under Section 6(A)
of the Essential Commodities Act.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
akv
To
1. The Senior Regional Manager,
Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation,
Madurai.
2. The District Collector,
Madurai District,
Madurai.