Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 19 (JHR)

Bajrang Rice & Flour Mills v. State of Jharkhand

2015-01-06

PRAMATH PATNAIK, VIRENDER SINGH

body2015
Judgment : Virender Singh, CJ. At the very outset, it needs to be mentioned here that the present 11 appeals were heard by us on 23.12.2014 and reserved for orders. During the course of arguments, it was brought to our notice by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants that during the pendency of these appeals, Secretary, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, (Government of Jharkhand) has issued direction to all the Deputy Commissioners of the State vide letter No.3592 dated 03.12.2014 that whosoever fails to comply with the impugned judgment/order of the learned Writ Court, will have to face registration of FIR(s) and that rice mill of the defaulter would be sealed/auctioned. Vide impugned order of learned Single Judge, the appellants/rice millers have been directed to deposit the entire amount of paddy/rice lying with them @ Rs.1250/-per quintal by the end of 31.12.2014. The appellants however projected certain genuine difficulties in depositing the entire amount by 31.12.2014, the stipulated period, but at the same time were ready and willing to deposit 75% of the amount of the paddy supplied to each of the appellant/rice miller. We, after considering the entire matter, put the 4th installment i.e. 25% of the total amount due on hold till the decision of these appeals vide our detailed order dated 23.12.2014 and in this factual backdrop, letter No.3592 dated 03.12.2014 issued by Secretary, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Government of Jharkhand was also put on hold vis-a-vis the present appellants only making it clear that it would have no effect qua the other rice millers. 2. All the 11 appeals on board involve a common issue for adjudication, therefore, clubbed together for their final disposal by this single common order. They have arisen from W.P.(C) Nos. 3786 of 2014 (LPA No.364 of 2014), 3787 of 2014 (LPA No.403 of 2014), 3788 of 2014 (LPA No.397 of 2014), 3795 of 2014 (LPA No.406 of 2014), 3796 of 2014 (LPA No.407 of 2014), 3800 of 2014 (LPA No.399 of 2014), 3805 of 2014 (LPA No.408 of 2014), 3813 of 2014 (LPA No.398 of 2014), 3814 of 2014 (LPA No.400 of 2014), 3817 of 2014 (LPA No.401 of 2014) and 3838 of 2014 (LPA No.405 of 2014) and stand disposed of by learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment/order dated 12.09.2014. 3. 3. It is worth mentioning here that along with the aforesaid 11 writ petitions, another 5 writ petitions also came to be filed which met the same fate. We have been informed by Mr. Indrajit Sinha that one of the writ petitioners, being aggrieved of the order of learned Single Judge, has also filed a separate L.P.A. but the same is not clubbed with these appeals being defective. The remaining writ petitioners, according to Mr. Sinha, however, have not assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 4. The appellants-writ petitioners (for short hereinafter to be referred to as ‘writ petitioners’ only) are aggrieved of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge vis-a-vis the direction to pay a sum of Rs.1250/-per quintal of paddy for the paddy/rice still lying with them within a stipulated period, ending on 31.12.2014, with a liberty to sell/dispose of the rice/paddy. So far as dispute with regard to payment of market fee, handling charges, transportation and other administrative charges and the damages allegedly suffered by the writ petitioners are concerned, with the consent of the parties the matter is referred to Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA), Ranchi and for that the writ petitioners have been permitted to approach the Member Secretary, JHALSA, who in turn, would refer the matter to the Lok Adalat for its settlement within a stipulated period of three months. 5. The following facts need to be noted for proper appreciation of the issue involved in these appeals. 6. For the Kharif Marketing Season 2011-12, Respondent No.2, by a resolution as contained in Memo No.3937 dated 22.12.2012 decided to procure 4,00,000 tonnes of paddy directly from the farmers through 1000 paddy procurement centers. It was resolved that Respondent No.2 would be the Nodal Agency for procurement whereas the Cooperative Societies of the State would assist Respondent No.2 in the matter. It was further resolved that for procurement of paddy from the farmers during the Kharif Marketing Season 2012-13, the Food Corporation of India (FCI), Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Society (PACCS) and Large Area Multipurpose Cooperative Societies (LAMCS) would be the procuring agencies. As per the scheme, two committees were constituted, one at the District Level and another at the Block Level for proper supervision of the scheme. As per the scheme, two committees were constituted, one at the District Level and another at the Block Level for proper supervision of the scheme. These Committees were supposed to identify the rice mills for ensuring the milling of the paddy into Custom Milled Rice (CMR) and also to arrange for transportation of the paddy for rice mills and after doing quality check, CMR would be sent to the nearest Godown of FCI. In this regard the agency would enter into an agreement which would be between the rice millers and the co-operative societies to ensure that there was no delay in milling the paddy and that the rice mills, after producing the CMR, would supply the same in bags containing 50 kgs of rice. It is also mentioned in the scheme that for the Kharif Marketing Season 2012-13, procurement of paddy would be made from the farmers from the date of issuance of commencement of the Scheme i.e. 22.12.2012 till 30.04.2013 and thereafter the CMR would be handed over to FCI by 31.10.2013. Thus, the entire transaction was to be completed by 31.10.2013. As per the Scheme, the funds for procurement of paddy from the farmers would be made by Respondent No.2 only and then to be sent to concerned districts. With regard to the budgetary allocation of funds for procurement of paddy, LAMCS and PACCS were brought into existence which were made responsible for implementation and supervision of the Kharif Marketing Season 2012-13. Rice mills were accordingly identified and allocated to LAMCS and PACCS and after procuring the paddy, the same was sent for milling. This is how the writ petitioners entered into agreements with concerned LAMCS/PACCS. 7. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Jai Prakash, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Jharkhand and gone through the Writ Court record. 8. Mr. Sinha, appearing for all the writ petitioners submitted that the writ petitioners cannot raise any objection with regard to referring the dispute to JHALSA on account of market fee, handling charges, transportation, administrative charges etc., but directing them to deposit a sum of Rs.1250/-per quintal for the paddy/rice lying with the writ petitioners, on the face of it, appears to be a very harsh order, more so, when the writ petitioners are not at all at fault. 9. Mr. 9. Mr. Sinha submitted that in terms of Para-17 of the resolution, if the rice miller had to transport the rice to FCI after milling the paddy, then the rice miller would be entitled to transportation charges and incidental charges as well, otherwise it was for the co-operative societies to make all arrangements for lifting the CMR to FCI and it was not the responsibility of any miller. He submitted that it is also clear in the said resolution that within how much time frame, the entire milling process was to be concluded, rice to be supplied to FCI which had to start on 30.04.2013 and end on 31.10.2013. 10. Mr. Sinha submitted that on 12.06.2013 a complaint (Annexure-2 available on records of LPA No.364 of 2014) was made by Rice Miller’s Association stating therein that CMR was not being lifted by the Co-operative Societies, followed by another reminder Annexure-2/1, in response thereto, the District Co-operative Officer vide letter dated 26.06.2013 (Annexure-3) informed the rice millers that the lifting exercise would start which was followed by another communication Annexure-3/1 dated 29.06.2013 in which it was stated that from 01.07.2013, FCI would receive CMR. Learned counsel submitted that on 24.07.2013, another letter was sent by Rice Miller’s Association to the Co-operative Society informing that CMR was lifted by FCI for 5-6 days in a month and thereafter FCI stopped lifting the rice and this fact is not denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed by the State Government. He has drawn the attention of the Court to Para-43 of the counter affidavit, available on the writ record annexed with LPA No.364 of 2014. 11. Mr. Sinha submitted that another letter is addressed by Association on 30.09.2013 to FCI with a copy to District Co-operative Officer, informing that CMR sent to FCI was being returned on the pretext of quality and certain irregularities in counting and the State is not in denial to this letter in its counter. According to learned counsel, the most important letter is dated 02.11.2013 whereby the District Co-operative Officer had informed the Association that the Kharif Marketing Season has been extended till 31.12.2013 and a similar letter was sent by Government of India to State of Jharkhand dated 22.10.2013. According to learned counsel, the most important letter is dated 02.11.2013 whereby the District Co-operative Officer had informed the Association that the Kharif Marketing Season has been extended till 31.12.2013 and a similar letter was sent by Government of India to State of Jharkhand dated 22.10.2013. He submitted that the Association, thereafter on 11.12.2013, sent a letter to FCI with a copy to District Co-operative Officer intimating that FCI was not receiving the goods and that only 17 days were left, therefore, FCI should expedite receiving CMR as the season which was already extended was finishing on 31.12.2013. Even then when FCI had not lifted the CMR, another letter was written on 07.02.2014 by the Association to the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar that quality of CMR was deteriorating as FCI had not lifted the rice till end of season, therefore, requested for lifting of the rice by FCI even beyond the time limit, pursuant thereto, District Co-operative Officer sent a letter to Joint Secretary of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of Jharkhand dated 10.03.2014 indicating that the rice was not lifted by FCI till the end of season i.e. 31.12.2013 and the quality of the rice was being affected, therefore, a request should be made by the Government to FCI for lifting the rice at the earliest. Learned counsel submitted that thereafter no communication was received by the Rice Miller’s Association either from the State or from FCI or from Co-operative Societies for lifting of CMR lying at the premises of the writ petitioners, instead order dated 20.06.2014 came to be passed by Secretary, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Government of Jharkhand followed by orders dated 27.06.14, 02.07.2014 and 12.07.2014 whereby Deputy Commissioner was directed to take steps to recover a sum of Rs.1298.05 per quintal from the rice millers, aggrieved of the said orders, the writ petitioners knocked at the door of the learned Writ Court by different writ petitions which have now been disposed of by a common order impugned herein. 12. Mr. 12. Mr. Sinha submitted that there is no allegation against any of the rice miller that the paddy supplied to any rice miller was not milled within time and if at all there was any dispute with regard to non-milling of the paddy within time, in terms of Clause 7 of the agreement entered into between rice millers and the Co-operative Society, the same has to be referred to Managing Director, Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation for its proper adjudication. According to learned counsel, all the orders impugned in the writ petition were bad for a very simple reason that no opportunity was given to the rice millers to put forth their stance. 13. Learned counsel submitted that on these broad points the impugned orders deserve to be quashed whereas the learned Writ Court has directed the writ petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.1250/- per quintal of the paddy considering as if the writ petitioners were at fault. 14. Learned counsel then submitted that the quality of the CMR lying with the writ petitioners have deteriorated to a great extent and even if it is sold off in the open market by them on account of the liberty granted by the learned Writ Court, the petitioners cannot even fetch half of the price of the rice at this stage. According to learned counsel, for the fault of the Co-operative Society or FCI, the writ petitioners have been virtually punished, that too, without there being any proper adjudication on the issue. 15. Learned counsel submitted that although with regard to other various/incidental charges some relief has been granted to the petitioners and that matter stands referred to JHALSA, yet direction to recover a sum of Rs.1250/-per quintal (Minimum Support Price of paddy) from the writ petitioners is staring very harshly upon them, therefore, in the interest of justice, while referring the dispute vis-a-vis market fee, handling charges, transportation, other administrative charges etc. and damages allegedly suffered by the petitioners, to JHALSA, Ranchi, as already directed by the learned Writ Court, the entire matter including the payment of Rs.1250/-per quintal requires to be referred to JHALSA for proper adjudication, if not to the Managing Director, Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation in terms of Clause 7 of the agreement. Mr. and damages allegedly suffered by the petitioners, to JHALSA, Ranchi, as already directed by the learned Writ Court, the entire matter including the payment of Rs.1250/-per quintal requires to be referred to JHALSA for proper adjudication, if not to the Managing Director, Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation in terms of Clause 7 of the agreement. Mr. Sinha, on the instructions of the writ petitioners, extends the consent for adjudication of the entire matter by JHALSA. 16. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, Mr. Sinha submitted that the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside/modified so that the writ petitioners, for the time being, are saved from making the entire payment of paddy supplied to them for milling @ Rs.1250/- per quintal. 17. Mr. Sinha lastly submitted that because of the latest letter issued by Secretary, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Government of Jharkhand dated 03.12.2014 directing all the Deputy Commissioners to lodge FIR(s) against the defaulting rice millers and to seal/auction their rice mills, a sword is hanging on the neck of all the writ petitioners, therefore, made a prayer for staying of the operation of the said order/direction dated 03.12.2014 till the final decision on the entire issue by JHALSA. 18. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned Additional Advocate General while repudiating the submissions advanced by Mr. Sinha, has drawn the attention of the Court to the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.2 wherein a letter sent by President of Rice Miller’s Association is annexed (Annexure-C on the writ record of W.P.(C) No.3786 of 2014 dated 25.04.2014). As per the said letter, the President has agreed to make the payment of minimum support price (Rs.1250/-per quintal) for the paddy for which rice was not supplied. This communication is addressed to Secretary, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Government of Jharkhand and based on a decision taken by Chhatisgarh Government with regard to CMR. Learned State counsel submitted that in fact the entire fault lies with the rice millers only who had not been supplying the CMR on time and if at all the quality of the rice has been deteriorated, the writ petitioners have to be held responsible being custodian of the paddy transported to them for milling. Learned State counsel submitted that in fact the entire fault lies with the rice millers only who had not been supplying the CMR on time and if at all the quality of the rice has been deteriorated, the writ petitioners have to be held responsible being custodian of the paddy transported to them for milling. Learned State counsel submitted that it is for this reason that a latest letter has been sent by Secretary, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Government of Jharkhand instructing the Deputy Commissioners to lodge the FIRs against the defaulting rice millers. Learned State counsel submitted that the second paddy season has already started from 01.11.2014 and a huge amount is to be recovered from the rice millers to whom the paddy was supplied for milling and in case the State is not able to even recover the minimum support price @ Rs.1250/-per quintal, which is to be given to the farmers, the entire process will come to a halt. 19. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and gone through the facts of the present case as highlighted by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, we are of the considered view that the entire dispute viz. the payment of a sum of Rs.1250/-per quintal of the paddy for the paddy/rice lying with the writ petitioners (rice millers) and the dispute with respect to payment on account of market fee, handling charges, transportation, other administrative charges etc. and damages, if any, suffered by the writ petitioners, are required to be adjudicated upon after affording the writ petitioners an opportunity to put forth their respective stance. Slapping them with the liability of making a payment of Rs.1250/-per quintal straightway for the paddy lying with them, in our view, would tantamount to deciding an issue without there being any adjudication upon it, which, on the face of it, would not only be improper but unjust also. 20. Admitted position before us is that the writ petitioners cannot join any issue with regard to supply of the paddy to them for milling as it is a matter of record. 20. Admitted position before us is that the writ petitioners cannot join any issue with regard to supply of the paddy to them for milling as it is a matter of record. What requires to be adjudicated upon is, whether after the milling was done by the writ petitioners, the rice was lifted by FCI and for that matter, by the Co-operative Societies also or the writ petitioners are at fault in not sending the CMR to FCI. Undoubtedly, quality of CMR would also be an issue to be adjudicated upon. Thus, certain areas are still open for proper adjudication. If one goes by the terms of Clause 7 as pointed out by Mr. Sinha, the dispute so arisen is to be adjudicated upon by Managing Director, Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation whereas in the case on hand, the State turned out to be the adjudicating authority unto itself and passed the orders impugned in the writ petitions, which orders, on the face of it, are ex-parte orders, thus not sustainable. However, in view of the fact that with the consent of the parties, the matter has already been referred to JHALSA, Ranchi with regard to the other disputes, except the Minimum Support Price of the paddy (Rs.1250/-per quintal) as already directed by the learned Writ Court, it would not be proper at this stage to refer the matter vis-à-vis the liability of payment of Minimum Support Price of paddy (Rs.1250/-per quintal) to the Managing Director, Jharkhand State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation in terms of Clause-7 of the agreement and on account of consent being given by the writ petitioners for referring the entire matter to JHALSA, we hereby refer the entire matter to Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA), Ranchi so that the whole dispute, in turn, is referred to the Lok Adalat and decided within a reasonable period. Ordered accordingly. 21. The next issue that crops up for our consideration is with regard to the payment of a sum of Rs.1250/-per quintal for the paddy/rice still lying with the writ petitioners. The writ petitioners have been directed to make the entire payment by 31.12.2014. Ordered accordingly. 21. The next issue that crops up for our consideration is with regard to the payment of a sum of Rs.1250/-per quintal for the paddy/rice still lying with the writ petitioners. The writ petitioners have been directed to make the entire payment by 31.12.2014. However, while reserving the present appeals for orders, by way of an interim relief, we gave the liberty to the writ petitioners to deposit 75% of the amount of the paddy supplied to each writ petitioner (rice miller) @ Rs.1250/-per quintal by 31.12.2014 and stayed the recovery of remaining 25% of the balance amount till the decision of these appeals. Since the second paddy season has already started from 01.11.2014, the interest of the State is also to be ensured. Therefore, the writ petitioners are directed to deposit the entire amount of the paddy supplied to them @ Rs.1250/-per quintal and there cannot be any relaxation in this regard. However, after the entire matter is adjudicated upon by JHALSA, Ranchi, the writ petitioners, if ultimately are found entitled to the refund of any amount on any count, the same shall flow towards them. At the same time, it would be most fair if the writ petitioners are granted some more time to deposit 25% balance amount for the paddy/rice still lying with them. We, therefore, grant another 30 days’ time effective from today to them to deposit 25% balance amount with the Respondent No.2 and till then the order dated 03.12.2014 issued by the Secretary, Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Government of Jharkhand shall cease to operate so far as it concerns present writ petitioners only (appellants in L.P.A. Nos. 397 of 2014, 364 of 2014, 398 of 2014, 399 of 2014, 400 of 2014, 401 of 2014, 403 of 2014, 405 of 2014, 406 of 2014, 407 of 2014 and 408 of 2014), in default thereof, the State shall be at liberty to initiate appropriate action against them. 22. As already directed by the learned Writ Court, the writ petitioners shall approach the Member Secretary, JHALSA within two weeks from today who, in turn, would refer the entire matter to Lok Adalat/Permanent Lok Adalat, as the case may be, so that this dispute is settled once for all as early as possible, preferably within three months from the date the writ petitioners approach JHALSA, Ranchi. The usual charges, if any, for adjudicating upon the dispute by JHALSA, shall be borne by both the parties as already directed. It is, however, clarified that in the event of the matter being not resolved/decided finally, the writ petitioners/rice mill owners or the State of Jharkhand would be at liberty to have recourse to the remedy available to them in accordance with law for redressal of their grievance. 23. All the 11 appeals on hand, stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.