CWP No.1153 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.1153 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.01.2011 **** M/s. Laxmi Rice Mills . . . . Petitioner VS. Punjab State Warehousing Corp. & Anr. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Mukand Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate for respondents ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner claims the benefit of difference of rate of rice in the crop year 2000-2001 on the ground that he could not deliver the rice during the crop year 1999-2000 due to scarcity of storage space which was to be provided by the Food Corporation of India. The petitioner also alleges discrimination in this regard as other millers i.e. M/s. Kuru Ram Rice Mills and M/s. Shiv Shakti Rice Mills, Mansa, are said to have been granted such a benefit by the respondent- Corporation. CWP No.1153 of 2010.doc - 2 – (2). The Managing Director of the FCI has turned down the petitioner’s claim by passing a speaking order on the plea that the delay in delivery of rice in the crop year 1999-2000 was not due to scarcity of storage space with the FCI rather it was attributable to the petitioner. (3). The petitioner, on the contrary, asserts that it has got enough proof to substantiate that the delay in delivery of rice in the crop year 1999-2000 was only on account of the scarcity of storage space with the FCI. (4). That being so and without expressing any views on merits, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to represent to the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation along with the above-mentioned relevant proof. (5). Learned counsel for respondent-Corporation fairly states that as and when such a representation is received from the petitioner, the same shall be re- considered and an appropriate order shall be passed in a time-bound manner and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of representation by the petitioner. CWP No.1153 of 2010.doc - 3 – (6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 10.01.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge