CWP No.16218 of 2009 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C. W. P. No. 16218 of 2009
Date of Decision: 26 - 10 - 2009
Harinder Singh and others ....Petitioners
v.
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
***
Present: Mr.J.S.Bhandohal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl.A.G., Punjab
for the respondents.
***
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
Mr.Inderdip Singh, Joint Director, Rice Milling, Department of
Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Punjab is present in Court. He
has placed on record a written note signed by the Food and Supplies
Officer, Samana and the same read as under:-
“In this writ petition the petitioner prays that quota of
paddy for milling has not been allotted to him according to
their milling capacity as per the policy for kms 2009-10 and
paddy is being shifted out to other area arbitrarily.
In this regard it is submitted that the prayer of the
CWP No.16218 of 2009 [2]
petitioner is totally incorrect as the arrival of paddy is going on
in the mandi’s and the paddy purchased by the Govt. procuring
agencies is stored in shellers in equitable proportion as per the
provision laid down in the custom milling policy for KMS
2009-10. As per clause 8 K of CMR Policy 2009-10 of the
department has fixed a norm for the distribution of paddy
equitably from the date of procurement. A quantity of 500 MT
for every one ton capacity for the first round shall be allotted
and the second round of allotment of paddy will start only when
the first round is completed and the mill has completed the
mandatory requirements of purchase of paddy in his own
account.
As per 4 b of KMS 2009-10 surplus paddy is shifted
from one district another, one centre to another centre within a
district as per the plan approved by Director Food & Supplies.
It has further been stated in the same clause that paddy would
be allotted to millers subject to its availability with procuring
agencies, the shortfall if any, from the paddy allocation to be
made without cash security would not be arranged from other
district. The right of the miller deemed to have lapsed and the
miller shall have no claim against it. Moreover the petitioner
no.3 M/s.Sunder Agro Kadrabad as per the office record does
not exist and petitioner no.9 M/s.Gurukripa Rice Mill is still
defaulter and has not been allotted for KMS 2009-10 and they
have no claim for storage/milling of paddy.
In view of the above policy position the paddy is being
CWP No.16218 of 2009 [3]
distributed among the rice millers including petitioners also.
The petitioner have not made any request to the respondent
no.8 in this regard. In view of the above the claim of the
petitioner is baseless and need to be dismissed.”
Counsel for the petitioners state that in view of the note
provided by the Department, no grievance of the petitioners subsists and the
present writ petition be disposed of in terms of the note submitted by the
respondent-Department.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of
the note reproduced above qua all the petitioners except petitioner No.3 and
9.
( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA )
October 26, 2009. JUDGE
RC