IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THRUSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29068 of 2010 Between: M/s. Sri Venkateswara Rice Industries Nalgonda District. ..... Petitioner AND The Collector (Civil Supplies), Nalgonda, Nalgonda District & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29068 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to issue permits and certificates of market support price (for short, ‘MSP’) to the petitioner firm to enable it to sell the rice in the open market and to the Food Corporation of India (for short, “the FCI”). I have heard Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents. The petitioner is a rice milling industry, which is engaged in the business of custom milling of paddy, mill levy and open market sales of rice. The petitioner was entrusted with 101808.90 quintals of custom milling of paddy under Indira Kranthi Pathaka Groups/Paddy Purchase Centers during Rabi season 2009-10. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that due to a huge cyclone, which has occurred recently, the paddy supplied to it has become wet and the resultant rice offered by it was not accepted by the FCI and therefore those stocks were held up with it. The petitioner also pleaded that the respondents have not been accepting the empty bags of the paddy supplied to it and they have been arbitrarily claiming Rs.38.40 ps per bag towards its cost and that there are as many as 60,000 bags lying with it due to the arbitrary refusal to receive the empty gunny bags by the respondents. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not granting permits and certificates of MSP to it. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Collector (Civil Supplies), Nalgonda District, wherein it is inter alia stated that of the total quantity of the paddy delivered to the petitioner for custom milling, it has failed to deliver 169.80 quintals of rice. It is further stated that the petitioner is liable to remit the cost of 85,903 gunnies. The respondents have therefore attributed the non-issue of the permits and certificates of MSP to the above two reasons. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed before the Court letter Lr.No.Mktg.M2(10)/Paddy/Rabi 2009-10, dated 21.11.2010, wherein respondent No.3 informed respondent No.2 that the cost of 169.80 metric tons of rice, which was short delivered by the petitioner is recovered from the custom milling charges payable to the petitioner for Rabi 2009-10 and that no rice balance is receivable from the petitioner for the said season. As regard the non-return of gunnies, it is stated that cost of Rs.38.40ps per gunny bag needs to be recovered for 85,903 new gunnies and that the matter is under process in the head office. Insofar as the reason that the petitioner failed to deliver 169.80 quintals of rice is concerned, the above noted letter dated 21.11.2010 is a complete answer to the contention of the respondents, as the cost of the said short delivered rice was recovered from the custom milling charges payable to the petitioner for Rabi season 2009-10. Therefore, it no longer remains a ground for the respondents to refuse to issue permits and MSP certificates. As regards the failure to return the gunnies, the respective pleadings of the parties made this a contentious issue. While the petitioner has taken the stand that the respondents have been arbitrarily refusing to receive as many as 60,000 gunnies, the respondents pleaded that the petitioner is liable to pay the cost of 85,903 gunnies. Therefore, the parties need to resolve this dispute through reconciliation. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to approach respondent Nos.1 and 2 by making its offer to return the gunnies, which are stated to be available with it in proper condition. If the gunnies offered by the petitioner are found to be in proper condition, the respondents shall accept the same. If they find reasons for not accepting the gunnies, they shall take a decision and communicate the same to the petitioner. As the petitioner is pleading urgency, it is permitted to approach respondent Nos.1 and 2 within one week from today with a representation. Within one week from the date of receipt of the representation, respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall resolve the issue and communicate the decision to the petitioner. Inasmuch as the 60% of the value recoverable from to the petitioner towards return of gunnies is Rs.19,79,205/-, the respondents are permitted to withhold the said amount from out of the amount payable to the petitioner towards the custom milling charges to enable the petitioner to obtain necessary permits and MSP certificates. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to forthwith issue the permits and MSP certificates by withholding the said amount, pending resolution of the dispute regarding the petitioner’s liability. The petitioner’s entitlement for release of the withheld amount would depend upon the outcome of the pending issue to be resolved by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.37030 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 02.12.2010 ES