AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Biswanath Rath, J
This writ petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioners challenging the decision of the Collector, Dhenkanal dated 15.11.2018 treating the
petitioner No.1 as a new mill for Kharif Marketing Season hereinafter in short be called as KMS (2018-19) and as a consequence also seeking a
direction to treat the petitioner no.1 as an existing mill and accordingly, direct the authorities to apply the norms of security as applicable to an existing
mill in terms of the paragraph 19.5 of the guideline at Annesxure-4 and allow it to participate on 1:6 S.D. norms for the KMS 2018-19.
Short background involved in the case is that the petitioner nos.2 & 3 entered into a partnership on 2.06.2017 to set up establishment called as
“Annapurna Agro Foodsâ€. The petitioner no.1 carried on business for rice mill and the petitioner no.2 is the Managing partner of the petitioner
no.1. Consequent upon setting up of the establishment the petitioner obtained registration certificate from the Regional Industrial Centre, Dhenkanal,
which is valid up to 1.06.2020. In the meantime, necessary certificates for starting of operation from the Inspector of Factories & Broilers, Pollution
Control Board, GST Registration Certificate, PAN Card, Electricity Bills, Online Registration with the Corporation and N.O.C. from the local
Sarpanch were obtained being condition precedent for seeking permission to participate in the procurement during relevant KMS 2017-18. In the
process, online mill registration was also made on 29.10.2017. The pleadings further reveals that consequent upon online registration on 29.07.2017 an
inspection of the petitioner no.1 establishment was made on 29. 03.2018 and the petitioner no.1 establishment recommended for appointment as a
custom miller. It further reveals that the petitioner no.1 since fulfilled all norms the Civil Supply Officer as per his note dated 3.04.2018 recommended
the petitioner to participate as a custom miller for the District Dhenkanal during KMS 2017-18. It is alleged that in spite of clearance and fulfilling all
criteria the petitioner was not permitted by the Collector to do the custom milling for KMS 2017-18. Since hardly few days were left for the KMS
2017-18 the petitioner though not challenged the arbitrary decision of the Collector but was expecting at least to get a fair scope for the KMS 2018-19
as an existing miller. While the matter stood thus, a decentralized procurement scheme for KMS 2018-19 was issued on 9.11.2018 vide Annexure-4
thereby bringing in certain amendments to the existing guideline of the year 2017-18.
Referring to clauses under paragraph 19.5, 21.1 & 21. 2, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that for no consideration of the case of the
petitioner no.1 in right time anticipating that the above provision applied to the petitioners’ case under a new mill and thereby depriving it to get
benefit of 1:6 S.D. norm, the petitioner was constrained to make representation to the Collector and District Magistrate, Dhenkanal on 2.11.2018
thereby requesting the Collector-cum-District Magistrate for not treating the petitioner no.1 in the category of new miller. In the meantime, the
Regional Industry Centre hereinafter in short called as ‘RIC’, Dhenkanal also recommended the case of the petitioners for grant of relaxed
security norms on the premises of the unity not being allowed to participate in the KMS 2017-18 due to shortage of paddy. The application of the
petitioners forwarded but with endorsement that due to want of paddy in the last moment of the purchase, the miller was not allowed for KMS 2017-
It is, further pleaded that unfortunately, the opposite party no.3 failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and by order dated 15. 11.2018 put an
endorsement that the petitioner no.1 establishment cannot be treated as old mill and it will be considered as a new mill. Consequent upon this decision
of the Collector, the petitioner no.1 was intimated vide letter dated 17.11.2018 that he is allowed to participate for the procurement season KMS 2018-
19 following the provision at paragraph 21.2 of Annexure-4 meant for new millers.
On reiteration of the pleadings involving the writ petition, Shri Narasinigh, learned counsel for the petitioners taking this Court to the development
taken place from time to time through the Annexures contended that the petitioners applied for registration in the month of October, 2017, inspection
of the petitioners’ mill by the competent authority was made on 29. 03.2018, the Collector put an endorsement on the consideration of the case of
the petitioners specifically indicting therein as “why for 2017-18†and keeping the participation of the petitioner no.1 in the KMS 2017-18 on hold,
contended that there are no latches on the part of the petitioners for not allowing them to participate in KMS 2017-18 and it is, on the other hand, the
authorities did not act within reasonable time even though the petitioner was otherwise ready for undertaking the workload. Learned counsel for the
petitioners, under the above circumstance, further contended that even assuming that the petitioners did not participate but looking to the series of
recommendations and petitioners’ applying in right time, nothing prevented the authorities to treat the petitioner no.1 as old miller for its
participating in KMS 2018-19. On the same premises, learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that as there is no fault at the instance of the
petitioners and for the delayed action by the competent authority, as indicated hereinabove, this Court should interfere in the order of the Collector
directing treating the petitioner no.1 as a new miller and issue suitable directions directing consideration of the case of the petitioner no.1 as an old mill
thereby granting appropriate relief.
Shri A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 though did not refute the submission of the petitioners with regard to the petitioner
no.1’s registration, recommendation by the different authorities from time to time to treat the petitioner no.1 in the old mill category but however,
taking this Court to the development involving the inspection of the petitioners’ mill taking place on 29.03.2018 and for the Collector’s
observation in the proceeding dated 3.04.2018, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 contended that for the admitted situation involving the
petitioners not allowing to participate in the years KMS 2017-18, the Collector was right in treating the petitioner no.1 as a new mill. Shri A.K. Mishra,
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 further taking this Court to the counter averments submitted that for the inspection of the petitioner no.1
unit made in March, 2018 there was no stock otherwise available with the Corporation for allowing the petitioner no.1 to participate as custom miller
of the District, Dhenkanal during KMS 2017-18.
In the above background, Shri A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 taking this Court to the provision contained in the guideline for
2018-19 particularly the provision at Clause 21 available at page 23 of the brief contended that for the above development the petitioner no.1 mill is
bound to fall under the provisions contained in the Clause 21.2. In the above background of the matter, Shri A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Collector requiring any interference of this Court in the
same.
Shri S.N. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties while fully supporting the submission of the
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 reiterated that there is no infirmity in the order of the Collector necessitating interference of this Court in
the same and thus, prayed for rejection of the writ petition.
Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, admittedly, the petitioner no.1 establishment was set up on 2.06.2017 and there is no
denial to the fact that the petitioners applied for online mill registration on 29.10.2017. This Court however, finds surprise in the action of the
competent authority making an inspection of the petitioner-establishment on 29. 03.2018. Even assuming that an inspection was made on 29. 03.2018
but from the documents at Annexure-7 this Court finds, the General Manager, RIC, Dhenkanal vide his communication dated 3.11.2018 observed as
follows:
“Inviting reference to the subject cited above, I am to recommend M/s. Annapurna Agro Foods, Managing Partner-Smt. Kabita Agarwal, At-Karandai, Po-Badalo
to participate in Procurement of Paddy during the KMS 2018-19. The Annual Installed capacity of the unit is 13056M.T of Pal boiled rice.
It is, therefore, requested, the unit may be allowed for the above programme. His security norms may be relaxed for the above unit as the unit was not allowed to
participate in last paddy procurement due to shortage of paddy.â€
Subsequent to the recommendation of the petitioners unit by the General Manager, RIC, Dhenkanal, this Court further finds from page 34 of the brief
that the Civil Supply Officer again processed the file for grant of permission in favour of the petitioner no.1 to participate in paddy procurement during
KMS 2017-18 on 26.03.2018. The document at page 35 of the brief makes it clear that there is already a note after the joint inspection test milling
report of the petitioner no.1 finally recommended the case for appointing the petitioner no.1 as a custom miller. It is, at this juncture, this Court finds,
the petitioners were allthrough ready to take up the assignment. It is, at this stage, considering the reconsideration of the Regional Industry Centre for
grant of relaxed security, there is no reason assigned as to why the inspection and test milling report was delayed. From the observation of the
Collector at page 36 of the brief, it appears, the Collector failed in appreciating the delay at the end of official side and that there is no latches on the
part of the applicant. This Court here observes that even assuming that there was no much stock available with the Civil Supply Department, nothing
prevented them to treat the petitioner no.1 as a miller for the year KMS 2017-18.
It is, at this stage of the matter, this Court again taking into consideration the approach of the petitioner no.1 to the Collector for treating it as an
existing miller and from the observation leading to the Collector’s order appearing at page 36 to 38 of the brief, this Court finds, there is no
material available fixing the responsibility on the petitioners involving the delay, if any, on their part. It is, on the other hand, the material goes to clarify
that due to want of paddy in the last moment of purchase the petitioners were not allowed for KMS 2017-18. This being the reason, this Court
observes, had the case of the petitioner no.1 been considered in appropriate time taking into account that he had applied since 29.10.2017, such a
contingency would not have arisen. Looking to the amended circular, this Court finds, for the difference in treating the new miller and the existing
millers, the petitioner no.1 is made to suffer being treated it as a new miller and the case of the petitioners is covered under clause 21.2 of the
amended provision. It is, at this stage of the matter, this Court takes into account the interim order passed by this Court while entertaining this writ
petition on 26.11.2018 in I.A. No.15250 of 2018 which reads as follows:
“I.A. No.15250 of 2018
As an interim, it is directed that the petitioners shall participate in Khariff Marketing Season (KMS) 2018-19 on 1:6 S.D. norms on furnishing collateral security to the
satisfaction of the opposite party no.2-Corporation.â€
For the said interim order, this Court finds, pending decision in the writ petition the petitioner is treated as an existing miller and already give the benefit
of 1:6 S.D. norms.
For this Court already observing that there was no latches on the part of the petitioners for non-consideration of their case for KMS 2017-18 within
the appropriate time and looking to the recommendation of the different authorities from time to time favouring the petitioners to get an opportunity in
KMS 2017-18, this Court finds, there is no proper consideration of the case of the petitioners by the Collector.
Under the circumstance, this Court interfering in the order of the Collector dated 15.01.2018 at Annexure-8 sets aside the same and directs the
opposite parties to treat the petitioner no.1 as an existing miller and grant the benefits under clause 19.5 for participation on 1:6 security deposit norm.
Writ petition succeeds. However, there is no order as to cost. The collateral security furnished by the petitioners pursuant to the interim direction of
this Court dated 26.11.2018 be returned to the petitioners.
………………………..