JUDGMENT : (Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.MH5/71460/2014, dated 15.08.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to return the security deposit of Rs.6,00,000/- together with hulling charges.) 1. The order dated 15.08.2015, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for return of security deposit is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner states that he is the owner of the Modern Rice Mill and running the same in the name and style of Arun Modern Rice Mill at Eral, Tuticorin District. The petitioner was appointed as hulling agent for the respondents/Corporation. The petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- in the respondent/Corporation. Due to misunderstanding with the 2nd respondent/the Regional Manager, false allegation was raised against the writ petitioner that the hulled rice were mixed with another rice and accordingly the 2nd respondent cancelled the hulling agency ship on 15.06.2012. However, the deposit amount has not been refunded earlier. 3. Earlier, the writ petitioner filed the W.P.(MD).No.13495 of 2014 and this Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the representation and pass orders. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in that writ petition, the impugned order dated 15.08.2015 was passed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that while supplying the rice from the petitioner mill, there was no such allegation and therefore, the subsequent allegations raised cannot be binding on the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for the refund of deposit amount. 5. The second respondent has stated that the vigilance officials has inspected the petitioner's deposited rice and found mistakes in quality i.e {30.2 to 51.5%] of mixed public distribution system rice. The District Revenue Officer, Tuticorin in order Na.Ka.No.1/20308/12 dated 24.11.2012, confirm the mixing of public distribution system rice. A Show cause notice was issued by the 2nd respondent and after receiving the explanation from the petitioner, an order was passed in proceedings in Na.Ka.B2/1844/2012 dated 15.06.2012, stating that charges were framed against the petitioner. The mill belongs to the petitioner, was brought under the black list and the deposit amount was taken under Corporation account for adjust the value of the rice and gunnies. The mill belongs to the petitioner, was brought under the black list and the deposit amount was taken under Corporation account for adjust the value of the rice and gunnies. Pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court to consider the representation in W.P.No.13495 of 2015, notice was issued to the writ petitioner. Considering the objections, the impugned order has been passed on 15.08.2015. 6. It is contended that the vigilance officials inspected the godowns, samples were taken from the applicant's rice bags and analyzed. In the result, 30.2% to 51.5% of variation in quality were found. Thus, disciplinary action was initiated against the said godown in charge vide proceedings No.E1/4067/12, dated 26.04.2012. The petitioner is liable and responsible for the discrepancy of the variety of rice i.e., mixing of public distribution system of rice with the hulling rice. On the basis of the above malpractice, the appellant hulling mill was brought under the black list and his deposit amount was taken by the Corporation as per terms and conditions. 7. The respondents referred the terms of the agreement between the hulling agent and the Corporation. Agreement clause 12 says about security deposit. “where there is reason to believe that the agent has indulged in malpractices or has misappropriated the paddy resultant rice or gunnies the agreement may be terminated by the principal besides black list the mill expert from recover in the value of rice, paddy, gunny at the rates prescribed by the principal time or adjusted from any amounts due to him form the corporation without prejudice to any criminal action that may be taken according to law”. 8. The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation has right to kept the deposit amount because the hulling agent was proved of guilty when the inspection of the Vigilance Officials and the samples were taken from petitioner deposited rice found as discrepancy in variety of rice. According to the agreement to corporation entitle to take the deposit amount. 9. This Court of the considered opinion that on conducting vigilance inspection, certain discrepancies were identified. Mixing of low quality rice was found and appropriate actions were taken. As far as the deposited amount is concerned, there is a clause in the agreement and such an agreement between the petitioner and the Corporation is binding on the parties. 9. This Court of the considered opinion that on conducting vigilance inspection, certain discrepancies were identified. Mixing of low quality rice was found and appropriate actions were taken. As far as the deposited amount is concerned, there is a clause in the agreement and such an agreement between the petitioner and the Corporation is binding on the parties. It is based on the contractual obligations and after providing opportunity to the petitioner, the deposit amount was waived. If at all any dispute in respect of the assessment of the quality of rice, that is to be resolved before the competent authority. However, High Court cannot conduct such a detailed enquiry in respect of such disputed facts. Further, the contractual obligations cannot be gone into with reference to the disputed facts. 10. Based on the counter, this Court is able to form an opinion that there were some malpractices occurred by mixing public distribution system along with the hulling rice and the said malpractices were traced out by the vigilance officials. Accordingly, actions were taken and based on the terms and conditions in the agreement, the security deposit amount was not refunded. 11. This being the factum established, the writ petitioner is not entitled for any relief and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.