Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2517 (ALL)

K. K. Paddy Product v. State of U. P.

2016-07-20

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, V.K.SHUKLA

body2016
JUDGMENT M/s K.K. Paddy Product has been before this Court on earlier occasion by preferring Writ Petition No. 40611 of 2013 M/s K.K. Paddy Product Vs. State of U.P. and others, and the said writ petition in question along with bunch of writ petitions has been finally decided by this Court and this Court after alternate analysis of the existing statutory provisions that cover the field of contract in question has proceeded to pass following order: - "68. Before parting, this court is constrained to observe about the gross negligence and apathy shown by the State agencies in implementation of the scheme. If they would have acted with due diligence and caution, such a situation would not have arisen, in as much as, there were ample safeguards in the scheme itself. The first safeguard under the scheme was by way of regular inspection by the State authorities and the procurement agencies. For the said purpose, the first inspection was to be carried out before the start of the hulling season by the concerned Marketing Inspector/Senior Marketing Inspector/Mandi Secretary to verify the opening stock of wheat on 1.10.2011. Under clause 33.1, procurement agencies were required to carry out monthly inspection. Under clause 37.1, the procurement agencies and the officials at the district and regional level were required to review weekly progress in the implementation of the scheme and forward information to the Regional Food Controller and the accounts officer regarding the quantity of CMR outstanding against a miller. If it was found that the CMR remains undelivered by a particular miller, the Regional Food Controller was required to stop acceptance of the levy rice from the miller. Under clause 38.2, within one month from the date the purchase of paddy comes to an end, the Center incharge of the procurement agency and the officials of the Food department and the officials at the district and regional level were to ensure that the entire CMR stands delivered. The District Food Marketing Officer was required to fill Form-I giving details of the paddy purchased, the CMR received and the balance CMR and the progress in this regard was to be intimated to the higher authorities in Form - II. This evidences that all figures at every stage were available with the authorities. Then how such an alarming situation was permitted to come into existence is not understood. 69. This evidences that all figures at every stage were available with the authorities. Then how such an alarming situation was permitted to come into existence is not understood. 69. There is another major safeguard contained in clause 32 which requires that the bank guarantee will be obtained from the millers in proportion to their milling capacity. It is Rs. 3 lacs for mills with capacity upto one tonne; Rs.4 lacs with capacity upto 2 tonnes and Rs.5 lacs above it. Under clause 32.2, a miller was to be provided with only such quantity of paddy which co-relates with the bank guarantee furnished by it. In case any miller was to be supplied excess paddy, then it was incumbent upon the authorities to first require the miller to furnish additional bank guarantee, so as to cover the value of the paddy supplied to it. This was the responsibility of the Center incharge of the procurement agency and the district level officers. There was a further check under clause 32.3, which required that next lot of CMR would to be supplied to a miller only after receipt of CMR against the paddy already supplied. In various writ petitions, there are specific allegations that the respondents have procured excess quantity of paddy, and thereafter started compelling the millers to lift more quantity of paddy than their hulling capacity. The authorities also did not care to obtain additional bank guarantee to cover the cost of the paddy supplied to the millers. In case, the same had been done, the present stalemate would have never occurred. 70. It may be noted that most of the cases are from the eastern region of the State. This demonstrates that the fault lies not in the scheme but it's implementation. The State and its officials and agencies are trustees of public wealth. Since they are responsible for the present situation, we therefore, direct the Chief Secretary, State of U.P. Lucknow to hold an enquiry, and take remedial measures so that it is not repeated again. 71. Writ-petitions stand decided accordingly. No order as to costs." 2. Accepted position is that pursuant to liberty that has been accorded by this Court, the petitioner has not deposited the amount that has been so levied. The petitioner has already moved Regional Food Controlloer for getting the dispute in question settled by way of arbitration. 71. Writ-petitions stand decided accordingly. No order as to costs." 2. Accepted position is that pursuant to liberty that has been accorded by this Court, the petitioner has not deposited the amount that has been so levied. The petitioner has already moved Regional Food Controlloer for getting the dispute in question settled by way of arbitration. The petitioner is contending before this Court that on two occasions date has been fixed for auction in question but till date auction could not be finalized, and therefore, this Court should ask the Sub Divisional Officer, Bareilly to pass any suitable order. 3. Once the accepted position is that the matter has travelled to this Court and the terms and conditions have not been complied with by the petitioner then, in our considered opinion, the law will take its own course and in such a situation, there is no occasion for us to intervene in the matter. Dismissed. This order has been passed with due assistance of Sri Ved Vyas Mishra and Santosh Kumar Mishra, Advocates.