C.W.P. No.17016 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.17016 of 2011 Date of Decision.12.09.2011 Food Corporation of India with its Head Office at Barah Khamba Lane, New Delhi having Managing Director and Regional Office in Punjab at Bay No.34- 38, Sector 31-A, Chandigarh with its District Office at Railway Raod, Faridkot through its Area Manager, District Office, 804, Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab through Secretary, Agriculture Department, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The Food Corporation of India, which is the petitioner, is aggrieved against the decision rendered by the Secretary, Punjab Mandi Board, directing that storage charges should be collected from the Food Corporation, which had allowed the stocks to be retained in the Mandi beyond the period of 72 hours. The order passed was for collection of charges to the extent of Rs.2,35,937/- for the period 2000-01. The learned counsel points out to me the circular issued in the year 2002 under Annexures P-10 and P-11 stating that since the Mandi Board is a Government Undertaking, it shall not collect rent for the stocks of the Government lying in their yards. This, in my view, would apply only prospectively to such of the stocks, which were allowed to be retained with the Mandi Board without the Corporation of India lifting it within time. This cannot apply in cases of the charges, which had been already levied. C.W.P. No.17016 of 2011 -2- 2. Learned counsel wants to contend that even the rule on which they make the claim would apply only to cases where stocks were not purchased from the Mandi Board but were allowed to be retained at the Mandi Board. These stocks were not secured from the Mandi Board but they had been temporarily stored and any delay in lifting the stocks ought not to result in mulcting the petitioner with any storage charges. This contention is also being taken up for the first time before this Court and even the decision to challenge an order, which had been already passed by the Assistant Collector on 26.12.2003 was brought before the Secretary, Punjab Mandi Board only 5 years later. There has been gross laches even for assailing the order passed by the Assistant Collector Grade II in the first place. Even now after the order is passed in January, 2011, the petitioner seeks for intervention in September and I find no reason given anywhere for the enormous delay that the petitioner has taken for all these years from 2003 to 2011. Even apart from need for a dismissal on merits, the petitioner is also guilty of laches in approaching the Court for seeking appropriate redressal. 3. This a case that involves a dispute between a State constituted Board and a Corporation established under an act of Parliament. Courts shall not be seen as a resting place for public functionaries to be fighting. They shall advise themselves to sort out their differences at their own level. 4. The writ petition is dismissed on the above grounds. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 12, 2011 Pankaj*