State Of Kerala Rep. By The Special Secretary vs N. R. Johnson

Shaji P. Chaly, J.

The aforesaid Review Petitions are filed seeking to review the judgment dated 08.06.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 26941 of 2021 filed by one N. R. Johnson, who is the first respondent in the Review Petitions.

R.P. No. 988 of 2022 is filed by third parties after securing leave to file the review as per order dated 19.10.2022 in I.A.No. 1 of 2022; whereas, R.P. No. 884 of 2022 is filed by the State and its officials, who are the respondents in the writ petition. The writ petition leading to the review petitions is a Public Interest writ petition filed by an agriculturist challenging the constitutionality of Exhibit P1 Government Order bearing No. 34/2018/F.P.D.D. dated 18.06.2018, whereby the State Government has re-fixed the out-turn ratio for one quintal of paddy as 64.5% instead of 68% fixed by the Central Government.

This Court, after considering the rival submissions made by the Government of India, Food Corporation of India, State of Kerala and the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation, has found that the power to fix the out-turn ratio for one quintal paddy is vested with the Central Government and therefore, the out-turn ratio fixed by the State Government cannot be sustained under law. The judgment was rendered by this Court after taking into account the provisions of the National Food Security Act, 2013, notification issued by the Government of India and the Memorandum of Understanding entered into by and between the Government of India and the State of Kerala with respect to the out-turn ratio of the paddy.

It was also found that as per Exhibits R2(a), R2(b) and R2(c) Guidelines issued by the Government of India, the State Government is duty bound to strictly adhere to the out-turn ratio of 68% fixed by the Government of India, in the absence of any relaxation approved by the Government of India.

R.P. No. 988 of 2022 is filed by the Kerala State Rice Mill Owners Welfare Association and a rice mill owner basically contending that the State Government was justified in issuing Exhibit P1 order, since due to the moisture content in paddy, a miller cannot achieve 68% and after the studies conducted by the authorities, it was found that from one quintal of paddy stored by the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation, only 64.5% rice can be returned. It is therefore contended that having realized the said situation, the State Government was right in issuing Exhibit P1 order and therefore, the judgment rendered by this Court is liable to be reviewed.

The learned Special Government Pleader has also advanced arguments in line with the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the Review Petitioner— Kerala State Rice Mill Owners’ Welfare Association.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the Food Corporation of India, submitted that the Review Petitioners have not made out any case for reviewing the judgment, since the judgment was rendered taking into account the law applicable for fixing the out-turn ratio and there is no error apparent on the face of the record.

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner also submitted that, in fact the State Government has conducted a study and it appears that it was found that from one quintal of paddy, 69% of rice is able to be procured. However, according to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, in spite of submission of an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, a copy of the said report is not given to the writ petitioner.

We have heard the learned, Senior counsel for the Review Petitioner — Kerala State Rice Mill Owners’ Welfare Association, Sri. E.K. Nandakumar assisted by Sri. Jai Mohan, learned Special Government Pleader Sri. S. Renjith for the State and its officials in the connected review petition, Smt. Mereena J. Joseph for the writ petitioner, Smt. K. R. Krishnakumari, learned Standing Counsel for the Food Corporation of India and Smt. Molly Jacob, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation, and perused the pleadings and material on record.

The sole question to be considered is whether the Review Petitioners have made out any case for reviewing the judgment. In fact, the out-turn ratio is fixed by the Government of India as per Exhibits R2(a) to R2(c) Guidelines dated 20.02.2018, 09.01.2019 and 04.04.2020; whereby the Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Department of Food and Public Distribution, addressed the Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies Department, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, accordingly. It is quite clear and evident from the documents that the out-turn ratio of 68% is fixed by the Government of India taking into account various parameters.

It is also clear and evident that on the basis of the said notifications, Exhibits R2(d) and R2(e) memorandum of understandings were executed by and between the Government of India and the State Government, whereby the State Government has undertaken to strictly adhere to the out-turn ratio fixed by the Government of India.

Therefore, in my considered opinion, interference was made by this Court to Exhibit P1 order of the State Government on the basis of the rules and proceedings in force. Therefore, we do not think that the Review Petitioners have made out a case for the review of the judgment. Which thus means, there is no error apparent on the face of the record or any other legal infirmities justifying us to review the judgment.

However, learned Senior counsel for the Review Petitioner in R.P. No. 998 of 2022 submitted that as per Exhibit P1 order of the State Government dated 18.08.2018, the State Government intended to compensate the millers to tide over the situation, during the pendency of the request made by the State before the Government of India for the review of the out-turn ratio; and it was in that background that the change of out-turn ratio from 68% to 64.5% was fixed by the Government, and by the said order, the Government did not intend to interfere with the out-turn ratio fixed by the Government of India.

But, we are of the view, we only said that the out-turn ratio fixed by the Government of India cannot be overturned by the State, in view of the guidelines, the provisions of the National Food Security Act, 2013 and the agreement executed by and between the parties.

Therefore, we do not think any interference is required to the judgment in this review petition. But, at the same time, we make it clear that we did not interfere with the inclination of the State Government to compensate the aggrieved parties in accordance with Exhibit P1 order of the State Government dated 18.08.2018.

Therefore, Review Petitions are dismissed, however, with the above observations clarifying the judgment.