Devi Rice Mills vs The District Revenue Officer and The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

M. Jaichandren, J.—This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order, in Na.Ka.

CS 2-25334-08, dated 22.07.2009, of the first Respondent and to quash the same insofar as it imposes compensation of Rs. 6,72,780/-, with a

further direction to prosecute the Petitioner.

It has been stated that the Petitioner is a hulling agent. By the impugned proceedings of the first Respondent, dated 22.07.2009, the Petitioner

had been ''black listed''. The agreement between the Petitioner and the Respondent is to be in force for a period of five years, from the year, 2006.

While so, on 17.06.2008, there was an inspection of the Petitioner rice mill, by the Vigilance Cell of the Respondent Corporation. No notice had

been issued to the Petitioner, either during the inspection, or on a subsequent date, with regard to the shortage of stock, or regarding the supply of

rice. Thereafter, the second Respondent had issued a show cause notice to the rice mills asking them as to why they should not be black listed for

the alleged irregularity in the supply of resultant rice. The Petitioner had sent its explanation, denying the allegations contained in the notice.

However, the second Respondent had rejected the explanation of the Petitioner and black listed the Petitioner mill. Thereafter, the Respondent had

passed the impugned order, dated 22.07.2009, holding as follows:

a) that the rice in question be confiscated.

b) that the Petitioner should pay a compensation of Rs. 6,32,780/- for 22426 Kgs of rice at Rs. 30/- per kg and

c) that the Food Cell, Virudhunagar, should take steps to prosecute the Petitioner''s Proprietrix and its Manager.

The main contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the first Respondent does not have any authority or jurisdiction to pass the

impugned order, dated 22.07.2009. An appeal, u/s 6C of the Essential Commodities Act,1955, could be filed only in respect of an order of

confiscation made u/s 6A of the said Act. There is no appeal provided under the Act, with regard to the act of the Respondent imposing a fine on

the Petitioner and the recommendation to prosecute the Petitioner by the Food Cell, Virudhunagar. It had also been submitted that the impugned

order of the first Respondent, dated 22.07.2009, had been passed, without any notice being issued to the Petitioner and without giving an

opportunity of hearing to it. Thus, the said order had been issued contrary to the principles of natural justice.

It had also been submitted that the impugned order of the first Respondent, dated 22.07.2009, is without jurisdiction and that it is in violation of

the statutory procedures laid down, u/s 6B of the Essential Commodities Act,1955. The enquiry said to have been held against the Petitioner,

based on which, the impugned order had been issued, is illegal and void. The documents relied on by the first Respondent, while passing the

impugned order, dated 22.07.2009, had not been given to the Petitioner, during the enquiry. As such, the order of the first Respondent, dated

22.07.2009, is arbitrary, illegal and void. It had also been stated that the grounds of confiscation had not been given. Even in the counter affidavit

filed on behalf of the first Respondent, it has not been stated that a proper show cause notice had been issued to the Petitioner before the enquiry

had been conducted, based on which the impugned order, dated 22.07.2009, had been passed by the first Respondent.

Per contra, in the counter affidavit filed by the first Respondent, the averments and allegations made on behalf of the Petitioner had been denied.

It has been stated that the agreement entered into between the Petitioner and the Respondent Corporation enables the Respondent Corporation to

terminate the contract in the event of the Petitioner mill acting in a manner contrary to the clauses contained in the agreement and if it violates any of

the relevant provisions of law. It had been submitted that, on 17.06.2008, the Vigilance Cell of the Respondent Corporation, while inspecting, had

found rice of Food Corporation of India origin in the samples drawn from the stocks deposited into the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation

Limited godown. Based on the rice analysis report, the Petitioner had been black listed. Further, it had also been submitted that the District

Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar, had issued final orders in his impugned proceedings, dated 22.07.2009, as per the powers vested in him and also

as per Sections 6A and 6C of the Essential Commodities Act,1955. Thereafter, the Petitioner had filed the Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.

(MD). No. 8467 of 2009, which had been withdrawn by the Petitioner to prefer an appeal before the District Court, Srivilliputhur, in C.A. No. 85

of 2009. Suppressing the said fact, the Petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition before this Court praying for the same relief.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents had submitted that the Petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity during the

enquiry and the impugned order had been passed by the first Respondent, on 22.07.2009, only on considering the explanation submitted on behalf

of the Petitioner, without exhausting the alternative appellate remedy provided u/s 6C of the Act, the Petitioner has approached this Court invoking

its Writ jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed, as it is devoid

of merits.

In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, as well as the Respondents and in view of the

records available, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for

in the present Writ Petition. Nothing has been shown on behalf of the Petitioner to substantiate its claim that no notice had been issued before the

enquiry had been conducted, based on which, the impugned order had been passed by the first Respondent. It is also noted that the Petitioner has

preferred an appeal before the District Court, Srivilliputhur, in C.A. No. 85 of 2009, challenging the order of confiscation of the rice in question. It

is also an admitted fact that there is an arbitration clause available in the agreement entered into between the Petitioner and the Respondent

Corporation and it is for the Petitioner to invoke the arbitration clause, if he so desires. As such, the present Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner is

devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.