AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
This is second round of litigation. Earlier in the first round, this court while noting the facts and submissions in WPC No.781 of 2021 has passed the
following order on 16.02.2021:
Heard.
1.Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner is a agent who procures the paddy which in turn to be handed over to the respondent
No.2 i.e. Managing Director C.G. State Marketing Federation and agreement was executed by the respondent No. 5 District Marketing Officer on
behalf of the respondent No. 2. According to Clause 2.7 of the agreement which is filed as Annexure P/4, if the paddy stock exceeds the buffer limit
then it is the duty of the State Marketing Federation to lift the same. Learned counsel submit that in respect of the paddy procurement of Haradula,
the maximum capacity of the paddy would be 6,500 quintals and the paddy has exceeded the buffer limit, therefore the respondent No. 2 i.e.
Managing Director C.G. State Marketing Federation was duty bound to lift the same. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has made a
representation vide Annexure P/6 to the respondent No. 2 which maybe directed to be decided.
2.Considering the fact that the agreement exists between the parties and the petitioner since has made a representation to the respondent No. 2,
therefore respondent No. 2 i.e. Managing Director C.G. State Marketing Federation is directed to decide the said application according to the terms of
agreement within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
3.With the aforesaid observation/ direction, the writ petition stands disposed off.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter the petitioner filed a representation, which has been rejected on the ground that the
dryness of the paddy shall not be considered by the State and they have refused to lift the paddy.
Learned counsel for respondents 2 & 5 would submit that according to clauses 2.6 & 2.7 of the agreement, if the respondents are unable to lift the
paddy then in such a case they can get it transported and the transportation charges as approved would be paid by the Marketing Federation and in
case of any other dispute, the agreement contains Arbitration Clause, therefore, they may approach the Arbitrator according to the agreement
between the parties.
As on today since monsoon commenced and if the paddy is left in open place then it would cause loss which is not anybody's interest.
Therefore, at any cost, the paddy is required to be transported to a safer place.
The agreement clause 2.6 & 2.7 deals with such conditions which read as under:
At this stage, since the representation filed by the petitioner was disallowed by respondents 2 vide annexure P-1 wherein reference was also made
by him to Clause 2.6 which touches upon transportation, therefore, it it would be appropriate to direct that the petitioner(s) pursuant to Clause 2.6 &
2.7 shall shift the paddy which are lying in their premises to the nearest storage centers and thereafter they may claim their transportation charges and
the same would be reimbursed by the concerned respondent according to clause 2.6.
In respect of dryness of the paddy, if the dispute comes to fore, then that would be decided according to Arbitration clause of agreement which
reads as under :
Â
In the result, in order to prevent the loss of paddy it is directed that immediate transportation is required to be made by the petitioners according to
clause 2.6 (supra) to the nearest storage center of respondent no.2. Thereafter, the petitioner(s) may claim transportation charges and on such claim
being made, the concerned respondents shall reimburse such charges as per Clause 2.6 of the Agreement and subsequently if any dispute still arises,
the matter would be referred to Arbitrator according to agreement.
With the above observations/direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.