CWP No.4231 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C. W. P. No. 4231 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14 - 10 - 2009 M/s Mahesh Rice Mills and others ....Petitioner v. Food Corporation of India and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Pawan Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Saqib Ali Khan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.O.P.Goyal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Hari Pal Verma, Advocate and Mr.Varun Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5. Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl.A.G., Punjab for respondent No.6 and 8. Mr.G.S.Sandhawalia, Advocate for respondent No.7. Mr.Karminder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.9. Mr.Ishtbir S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.10. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioners during course of argument has projected that petitioners are aggrieved against the decision of respondents to circulate name of petitioners' mills in black list, for denying allotment of paddy for milling in future and has prayed that communications Annexures CWP No.4231 of 2009 [2] P17 and P18, which express intention of respondents to this effect be quashed. Counsel for the petitioners has referred to Annexure P6, an agreement, annexed with the connected petitions arrived at between the petitioners and Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Punjab. Clause 6(g)(vii) of the agreement read as under:- “6(g)(vii) If a Police/Court case/arbitration case is pending against the miller on account of embezzlement relating to custom milling or levy Rice pertaining to any crop year. However, if the miller clears the default of the concerned agency along with penal interest at the rates for the relevant year(s), he may be considered for allotment without prejudice to the outcome of the F.I.R./Court Case/Arbitration Case pending against him.” It is submitted that petitioners are ready and willing to deposit the entire amount of default along with penal interest to Food Corporation of India (hereinafter to be referred as, `FCI'). It is contended that the above said provision make it crystal clear that even if a case FIR is registered, Miller can continue to mill the paddy at the discretion of the allotment agency who on behalf of FCI allot paddy. It is submitted that the petitioners have a right to be considered for allotment of paddy even after registration of the FIR. Mr.O.P.Goyal, senior counsel appearing for the FCI has stated that CBI had recommended that for supplying rice beyond the prescribed limit under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and below rejection limit, miller be black-listed. Referring to Clause 6(g)(vii) of the agreement, CWP No.4231 of 2009 [3] Mr.Goyal has submitted that it only vest right in the miller to be considered for future allotment of paddy. Whether to allot future work of milling or not is the absolute discretion of the FCI. To controvert this, Mr.Pawan Kumar has submitted that the object of Clause 6(g)(vii) is that infrastructure created for the milling should not go waste and remain idle. Therefore, allotment agency or FCI can evolve strict regulatory mechanism to ward off any future default on the part of the miller. Counsel appearing for the state agencies have contended that on behalf of the FCI, state agencies only allot paddy for purposes of milling and final authority vest in FCI and as per the communication of FCI based on recommendation of CBI, they had decided not to allot work to the millers. After hearing counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of by observing that in case millers deposit the default amount along with penal interest, as prescribed in Clause 6((g)(vii) reproduced above, the authorities who are vested with absolute discretion, may consider claim of the petitioners for allotment of work in future. It is clarified that default amount along with penal interest is to be deposited to the satisfaction of the FCI. The petitioners may approach the FCI for making the payment of the amount due, in case such a request is made, the FCI shall communicate to the petitioners, the amount which petitioners are liable to pay within two weeks. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) October 14, 2009. JUDGE RC