Maa Samleshwari Rice Mill, vs Union Of India

Heard Mr. Lavkush Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned Central Government counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1, Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State and Ms. Juhi Jaiswal, learned counsel, appearing for Marketing Federation.

The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner against the order dated 09.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 572 of 2024 (Maa Samleshwari Rice Mill vs. Union of India & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner.

Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that after successfully completing the earlier contract the appellant/writ petitioner firm on 15.11.2022 and 30.11.2022 signed/executed two agreements with the respondent No. 6 (Annexures P/1 and P/2 in writ petition) regarding custom milling of paddy procurement in the year 2022-23. Accordingly, the appellant/writ petitioner Mill had to supply total 6432 MT rice (224 lots) upto 31.12.2023, but 28.40 MT (one lot) rice could not be supplied because of certain problems in Food Corporation of India (FCI) software and also in the quality of paddy which was being faced by appellant/writ petitioner Mill and other rice millers. He further submits that due to the problems in supplying Grade-A (FRK) rice in FCI, a request was made by appellant/writ petitioner mill vide letter dated 23.12.2023 and also by some other rice-millers of Sarangarh-Bilaigarh District and Durg Districts to respondent No. 6 for change in grading rice (Common (FRK), as excess being LG Arwa-thin rice is not being accepted by the FCI and instead consent be given to deposit Arwa-Mota rice, so that the entire rice could be supplied within stipulated period i.e. 31.12.2023. Thereafter, the respondent No. 6 immediately on the same date issued letter to the respondent No. 3 and other authorities to change to Common (FRK) rice which was allowed by the respondent No. 6.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner that on the basis of consent received from the rice-millers (six in numbers), respondent No. 5 (after approval of respondent No. 3) issued letter to Sr.Technical Director, NIC, Ministry, on 29.12.2023 (Annexure P/6 in the writ petition) with copy to other respondents, giving permission for change in Software from Grade-A (FRK) to Common (FRK) for FCI on the basis of adjusting the amount of variety difference in the bill. The respondent No. 3 further instructed the Senior Technical Director to make necessary provisions in the software. He also submits that this type of problem was not faced by any other rice-millers except the present appellant/writ petitioner and 05 other rice-millers and the same could not be solved by the respondents authorities till 31.12.2023 so appellant/writ petitioner could not complete supply, therefore, he moved representations on 06.01.2024 (Annexure P/4 in the writ petition) before respondents No. 4 & 6 disclosing the above problems. It was also stated that the work is also being done by appellant/writ petitioner in CMR year 2023-24, so, bank guarantee of appellant/writ petitioner should not be invoked under any circumstances and appellant/writ petitioner be provided an opportunity to supply rice.

Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that from the above it is clear that the situation was completely not only beyond the control of appellant/writ petitioner Mill, but also the respondents itself. Hence on 05.01.2024 (Annexure P/5 in the writ petition) the District Rice Mill Association, Sarangarh-Bilaigarh also requested the respondents to give one opportunity to deposit the rice as the quantity of remaining rice is very low i.e. 28.4 MT, but the respondents have not considered the same till date and not gave opportunity (i.e. one week time) to supply. It will be pertinent to mention here that numbers of such rice-millers are more than hundreds in all over the C.G. State. One such representation has also been made by Durg Rice Mill Association on 15.01.2024 (Annexure P/6 in thew writ petition) before the respondent No. 4 and others for giving opportunity and not encash the BG of those rice miller who due to unavoidable problems could not complete their supply. He also submits that the respondent No. 2 not considered the representations and issued the impugned letter dated 15.01.2024 (Annexure P/7 in the writ petition) addressing the respondents No. 3 and 4 stating that a total of 72.63 lakh tonnes of rice has been supplied in the CMR-Kharif marketing year 2022-

23 and still about 0.17 lacs (only 17000) MT is left to be supplied from the Rice Mills of all over Chhattisgarh State. Therefore, action be taken against such millers (including appellant/writ petitioner), who have not supplied their remaining rice against the paddy raised by them till 31.12.2023.

Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner contented that after issuance of the impugned letter, the respondent authorities started taking stern action/coercive steps against the appellant/writ petitioner which is in clear violation of the provision of clause 13 and 14 of the Agreements. The appellant/writ petitioner reproduces the Clauses 13.2 & Clause-14.1 of the Contract as under:

“13.2 If there is still paddy left with the contracted party No.2 for custom Firming even after the contract ends, then all the terms of the contract regarding its disposal will still be applicable.

14.1 In case of any dispute arising related to any clause of this contract, both the parties can submit a representation to the District Collector (respondent No. 4) for amicable resolution of the dispute. The decision taken by the District Collector in the said representation will be acceptable to both the parties.”

Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the instant matter of appellant/writ petitioner mill is similar to WPC Nos. 5637 of 2022 and 5791 of 2022 (Annexures P/8 and P/9 in the writ petition) in which the learned Single Judge had specifically directed the respondents No. 3, 5 and 6 to ensure that the supply of the deficit rice in between should be accepted against the deficit that the petitioner has made and for this period of five day's time, the respondents shall not make any endeavor in encashing the Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioner and restrain the respondents from taking any coercive steps for encashing the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner.

In view of the above, the appellant/writ petitioner prayed before the learned Single Judge for the following relief(s):

“(I) to quash the impugned letter dated 15/1/2024 (Ann. P-7) issued by the respondent No. 2/State restraining the respondent authorities to invoke the Bank Guarantee furnished by petitioner Mill.

(ii) to direct the Respondents to decide the representation dated 5/1/2024 (Ann. P-5) and dated 6/1/2024 (Ann. P-4) pending before them for increasing the time (at least 2-3 days) to supply the deficit rice, as per earlier orders of this Hon'ble Court (Ann. P-8 & P-9).”

Thereafter, on 31.01.2024 alongwith WPC No. 514 of 2024 and 6 other petitions, the petition bearing WPC No. 572 of 2023 was heard and the learned Single Judge direct the C.G. MARKFED and concerned banks to not encash the bank guarantee, if not encashed already till the next date of hearing. The respondents were granted four weeks' time to file reply and called the above writ petitions on 27.03.2024. Similarly, on 01.02.2024 WPC No. 482 of 2024 and 3 other petitions were heard and the learned Single Judge has been kind enough to pass the similar order as passed on 31.01.2024 directing the C.G. MARKFED and concerned banks to not encash the bank guarantee, if not encashed already till the next date of hearing. The respondents were further granted four weeks' time to file reply and called these matter alongwith WPC No. 514 of 2014.

Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that despite knowledge of the above order(s) of the learned Single Judge dated 31.01.2024, the respondent No. 3 deliberately given his approval for issuance of letter dated 01.02.2024 (Annexure P/10 in the writ petition) whereby the respondent No. 5 directed all the District Marketing Officers for taking action against such rice-millers (including the present appellant/writ petitioner, who failed to supply the remaining rice). He further submits that in compliance the orders of the learned Single Judge dated 31.01.2024, both C.G. MARKFED and the respondent No. 7 have not encashed the bank guarantee of the appellant/writ petitioner till date.

Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner contented that on 27.03.2024 the case was listed before the learned Single Judge and the Government Counsel appearing for the Union of India, prayed for and was granted one week's time to seek instruction. The learned Single Judge further ordered to call these matters in the week after next. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier shall continue till the next date of hearing. He further c contented that the respondents No. 3, 5 and 6 (CG MARKFED) has admitted in its reply para-10 that the Union of India and State Government have as per the conditions extended time firstly upto 30.11.2023 and secondly till 31.12.2023 (Annexures R/2 to R/4 in the writ petition) Unfortunately, in its reply MARKFED not stated anything despite their knowledge about the software problems faced in the whole December, 2023 not only by the appellant/writ petitioner mill but also by other 5 rice-millers of Sarangarh-Bilaigarh and Durg Districts in supplying Grade-A (FRK) rice in the FCI. Therefore, the appellant/writ petitioner mill in his rejoinder (filed in the writ petition) submits that he should have been given a certain time to deposit the remaining 28.40 MT rice even after 31st December, 2022 adopting a lenient view in the interest of justice. But, in the case of the appellant/writ petitioner, the respondents No. 1 and 2 both failed to submit reply, but despite their non-submission of reply, the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 09.04.2024 dismissed the petition bearing WPC No. 572 of 2024 along with other similar writ petitions.

Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the learned Single Judge has not considered the grounds raised by the appellant/writ petitioner i.e. Software problem faced by appellant/writ petitioner in the whole December month, strike of drivers in the second fortnight of December, delay in payments, delay in passing orders by DMO in supply of Arwa Rice. Further, the learned Single Judge also not considered the documents attached with the petition. Hence, the aforesaid impugned order dated 09.04.2024 is untenable in the eyes of law.

On the other hand, learned Central Government Counsel, learned State counsel and learned counsel, appearing for Marketing Federation submit that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for.

Learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose submit that there is an efficacious alternative remedy available in favour of the appellant/writ petitioner in terms of Clauses 10.1 & 14.1 of the agreement to approach the Collector and without availing the same; the appellant/writ petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition bearing WPS No. 572 of 2024. It is further submitted that the appellant/writ petitioner could not deposit the custom mill rice within the duration of the agreement, whereas, it was the responsibility of the appellant/writ petitioner to deposit the same in the godown of the Food Corporation of India (F.C.I.) or in the godown of C.G. Civil Supplies. They would also submit that the appellant/writ petitioner was running away from his contractual obligations as he lifted paddy in the month of November-December, 2022, and despite the expiry of the duration of the agreement, the appellant/writ petitioner could not deposit the custom mill rice. It is further argued that in agreement with Clause 6.12, if the miller fails to deposit the custom mill rice within a stipulated period, the penalty can be imposed. According to Clause 13.3, the millers are duty-bound to follow the directions issued by the Government of India and the State of Chhattisgarh. They would further contend that twice the extension was granted to deposit the custom mill rice, but the appellant/writ petitioner failed to avail the benefit of the extended period. They would also contend that the appellant/writ petitioner could not fulfill the contractual obligations within the four corners of the agreement; therefore, the State took the right decision to take action as per the relevant clause(s) of the agreement.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record.

Clause 6.12 of the agreement in question says that if the miller fails to deposit the mill rice within a stipulated time period then he is liable for the penalty. Clause 13.3 says that the miller is duty-bound to follow the rules, and instructions issued by the Government of India as well as the State Government. Initially, the time period to deposit the custom mill rice was provided in the agreement, but through the letter dated 18.10.2023, the State Government sought an extension from the Union of India and the period was extended till 30.11.2023. Again, the aforesaid period was extended till 15.12.2023. Despite, the extension granted by the Union of India and the State Government, the petitioners could not deposit the custom mill rice, therefore, on 15th January, 2024; a direction was issued to the CG. Marketing Federation to take action according to the provisions of the agreement. However, the documents filed by the respondents (in the writ petition), particularly, the letter dated 02.11.2023 issued by the Food and Public Distribution Department, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Government of India, the letter dated 03.11.2023 issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh and the letter dated 15.12.2023, whereby the period of depositing the custom mill rice was extended till 31.12.2023, would conspicuously reveal that the appellant/writ petitioner could not avail the benefit of such extension of period.

In the present case, the duration of the agreement expired in the month of March and April, 2023. The appellant/writ petitioner had to deposit custom mill rice within the duration of agreement. The appellant/writ petitioner could not avail the benefit of extended period, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the State Government took the right decision to take action according to the relevant provisions of the agreement.

In the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner i.e. WPC Nos. 5637 of 2022 and 5791 of 2022 , the last date for the supply of custom mill rice was 30.11.2022 according to the agreements and immediately thereafter, the petitions were filed, therefore, the learned Single Judge allowed the rice millers to supply the custom mill rice within 5 days. But, in the present case, the duration of the agreement came to an end in the month of March, 2023. Thereafter, the appellant/writ petitioner kept mum for several months, and later, the appellant/writ petitioner did not take any steps to supply the custom mill rice, even the appellant/writ petitioner could not avail the benefit of extended period till 31.12.2023. Therefore, the facts of the present case are entirely different from the facts of the cases cited.

Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court.

Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.