Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 269 (MP)

Madhu Bai Jat v. State of M. P.

2024-03-13

SUBODH ABHYANKAR

body2024
ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs :-- “7.1 That the petitioner be compensated for the loss of revenue caused to its warehousing business. 7.2 That the State government may kindly be directed to constitute a high-level investigation committee and the report of the committee be called in this Court for so that action may be taken against erring officials. 7.3 That the respondents may kindly be directed to not withdraw the remaining 10 Stacks of agricultural produce which presently stored in the wharehouse of the petitioner. 7.4 That the respondents may be directed to follow the relevant policies regulating the storage and outflow of agricultural produce from warehouses. 7.5 That the costs of this petition be recovered from the respondents. 7.6 That heavy cost may be imposed upon the respondents for carrying out arbitrary and illegal actions. 7.7 Issue such other or further appropriate order, writ or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.” 7.8 That, the report dated 11.9.2023 may kindly be quashed.” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that she is the owner of a warehouse in Rajgarh district which provides category ‘A’ storage facility for consideration of rent, whereas the respondents, in coordination with each other are responsible for conducting the process of procurement, storage and supply of wheat in the State of M.P. through such warehouses. According the petitioner, the rent becomes accrued for each day that the storage facility is used for storage of agricultural produce, which is basic source of revenue for the warehouses, and once the agricultural produce is taken out of the warehouse, no rent is payable in respect of it. Therefore, the longer the agricultural produce stays in a warehouse the better it is revenue wise for the warehouse. Considering the fact that there are multiple warehouses and every warehouse wants the agricultural produce to be stored for as long as possible, the State has laid down policies regulating the processes of procurement, storage and supply (to FCI etc.) of wheat which is fair and equitable. Whenever the Food Corporation of India requires wheat to be taken from the State, the MPSCSC suggests a list of warehouses which are eligible to give delivery of agricultural produce to the FCI. Whenever the Food Corporation of India requires wheat to be taken from the State, the MPSCSC suggests a list of warehouses which are eligible to give delivery of agricultural produce to the FCI. It is from this list that the FCI takes the quantity of agricultural produce it requires. The list must be prepared in accordance the priority order stipulated in the Joint Venture Scheme 2023-24 (AnnexureP/5). This priority order is based on the parameters of cost efficiency, time efficiency and equitability. However, in utter disregard to the said priority order, MPSCSC and FCI are collecting wheat from the petitioner’s warehouse, in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner to cause unjustified financial loss to the petitioner. On the basis of the manner of conduction of the collection process, non-transparency of warehouse wise & district wise stock list which ought to be regularly uploaded on the website but isn’t being so updated, absence of proper information when it comes to the quantity of agricultural produce actually requisitioned by the FCI and whether the same is actually being handed over to the FCI, explanation as to why agricultural produce is not being collected from the 'Ready for Delivery' warehouse where the agricultural produce has been lying stored for a much longer period of time and the period antecedents of respondents, of Respondents Nos. 06, 04, 09 and 10 in the context, the petitioner strongly suspects foul play, partiality and corruption. It is also suspected that wheat being collected from the petitioner’s warehouse is not actually being supplied to FCI, instead it is being transferred to other warehouses so that those warehouse owners could benefit from increased rental income. Considering such out of the way favours are being afforded to these warehouse owners, there is a strong likelihood of bribery involving all those responsible for exercising discretion over the whole process of inflow and outflow of agricultural produce. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said non compliance with the fair policy resulting into discrimination and partiality by the State violating the Right to Equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not acting in line with fair policy resulting into discrimination and partiality by the State. 4. Replies have also been filed by the respondents. 5. 3. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not acting in line with fair policy resulting into discrimination and partiality by the State. 4. Replies have also been filed by the respondents. 5. On perusal of the record, it is found that the operation of the procurement centre are regulated by the policy 2023-24, issued vide circular dated 10.3.2023 by the Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Govt. of M.P., a copy of which has also been placed on record. On perusal of the aforesaid policy, it is found that there is an in-house procedure available for redressal of grievances from para 15.10 onwards, and 15.18 also provides that all such difficulties which have not been specifically provided for in the regulations and protocol can be settled by the Director. 6. The petitioner has also relied upon the policy i.e., Joint Venture Scheme 2023-24 as also a circular dated 23.9.2022, issued by the Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, Govt. of M.P. which provides for first in-first out policy of the material stocked in godowns. 7. It appears that the representation submitted by the petitioner has also not been decided till date. 8. In such facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that since various disputed question of facts are involved in this petition, the same cannot be decided while invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and so far as the replies filed by the respondents are concerned, this Court is not inclined to reflect upon the same as it would amount to entertaining the disputed questions of facts between the parties. Hence, the same are not being taken into account in this petition. 9. Resultantly, the admission is declined and the present petition being misconceived is hereby dismissed. Hence, the same are not being taken into account in this petition. 9. Resultantly, the admission is declined and the present petition being misconceived is hereby dismissed. However, with the liberty reserved to the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with all the relevant documents before the competent officer/authority/respondent within a period of two weeks which shall be decided by the competent officer/authority within a further period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation, after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, and in case, if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the order of the respondents, he may take recourse of such remedies which are available to him under the law. 10. With the aforesaid direction, writ petition stands disposed of as dismissed. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not reflected upon the merits of the matter.