IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14979 of 2009 Date of decision: 21st October, 2009 M/s Ronaq Ram Rice Mills and others … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl. AG Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) A number of writ petitions, bearing (1) CWP No.14979 of 2009 titled as ‘M/s Ronaq Ram Rice Mills and others v. State of Punjab and others’ (2) CWP No.15172 of 2009 titled as ‘M/s Shakti Rice Mills and others v. State of Punjab and others’ (3) CWP No.15239 of 2009 titled as ‘M/s Mittal Foods and Rice Mills and others v. State of Punjab and others’ (4) CWP No.15334 of 2009 titled as ‘M/s Lajwanti Rice Mills and another v. State of Punjab and others’ (5) CWP No.15835 of 2009 titled as ‘M/s Guru Teg Bahadur Rice Mills and others v. State of Punjab and others’ (6) CWP No. 15922 of 2009 titled as ‘M/s Shri Naina Ji Rice Mills and another v. State of Punjab and others’ and (7) CWP No. 15658 of 2009 titled as ‘M/s H.R. Rice Mills and another v. State of Punjab and others’ have been filed in this Court by the paddy millers, who have installed shellers of various capacity. Counsel for the petitioners insisted that these writ petitions be decided immediately, so that their right to receive paddy for milling is not frustrated, as the paddy season is going to end soon. Taking Civil Writ Petitions No.14979 of 2009 this prayer of the petitioners into consideration, filing of the written statement by the counsel for the State was dispensed with. This order shall dispose of all the aforementioned writ petitions. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl. AG Punjab, was requested to requisition the record, along with a responsible officer. Today, Inderdeep Singh, Joint Director, Department of Food and Supply is present in Court, along with relevant record. For facility of reference, facts can be gathered from CWP No.14979 of 2009 titled as ‘M/s Ronaq Ram Rice Mills and others v. State of Punjab and others’. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioners had established a rice mills in Sunam and Dhuri falling within District Sangrur. They have been allocated paddy for milling/shelling by various agencies of the State Government. Petitioners have placed on record Annexure P-1, guidelines issued by the Director, Food and Civil Supply and Consumer Affair, Government of Punjab, Chandigarh to all District Controllers, Food and Supplies and Consumer Affairs of State of Punjab. This communication (Annexure P-1) lay out guidelines, standards and norms for determining the capacity of the rice mills. Case of the petitioners is that on the basis of these guidelines, they had increased their capacity from 1 ton to 2 ton. It is further submitted that petitioners have obtained No Objection Certificates from Punjab Pollution Control Board and have also obtained electricity connection. Grievance of the petitioners is that vide communication (Annexure P-12) dated 4th September, 2009, Government has taken a decision that during the year 2009-10, capacity of established existing rice mills in the State will not be increased. Petitioners have assailed this communication on the following grounds: 2 Civil Writ Petitions No.14979 of 2009 (1) That petitioners have invested huge funds and have created infrastructure and same cannot be allowed to go waste and remain idle. Therefore, the department is bound to allocate paddy according to their capacity. (2) Whereas the new shellers, which are being established, are given paddy according to their capacity, no increase in allocation of paddy is available to the existing rice shellers, even though they have enhanced the capacity. This, according to the counsel, amounts to discrimination. (3) Thirdly, it has been submitted that action of the respondents violates fair play, is discriminatory in nature and arbitrary, and cannot be sustained. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, appearing for the State, has submitted that various requests were received for determining the enhanced capacity of the millers, but a conscious decision was taken by the Government not to make allocation of paddy according to the enhanced capacity, as due to limited resources, infrastructure and man- power, the department was not in a position to determine the capacity, as paddy season, having a short duration, requires that resources and energy of the department is mobilized towards garnishing maximum paddy, getting it milled, stored and sold in the market. It is further submitted that to allay the apprehension of the millers, Government has formulated a Cash Security Scheme, under which on payment of 5 per cent of the value of paddy, 1200 MT paddy can be allotted to a miller having 1 ton capacity. It is further submitted that Government cannot be barred from taking a better business decision for furthering its interest, therefore, the State Government is not only to take into consideration the interest of the millers but the larger public good. Finally, it has been submitted that a uniform 3 Civil Writ Petitions No.14979 of 2009 decision has been taken that in the year 2009-10, capacity of all established existing rice mills will not be increased, therefore, there is no discrimination, as the Government has not adopted policy of pick and choose. On the observation made by this Court that determination of the capacity, in itself, will not vest right in the petitioners that the department should allocate necessary paddy, counsel for the petitioners have submitted that their capacity be assessed and determined for next season falling in year 2010-11 and for this year, they may be allocated paddy according to their existing capacity, already assessed. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, seeking instructions from Inderdeep Singh, Joint Director, Department of Food and Supply, has very fairly stated that after paddy season is over, necessary infrastructure and man- power will be available with the department to determine the enhanced capacity of rice mills, therefore, their capacity will be determined in the next year, without any binding on the department for allocation of paddy, as the ground realities may change next year. As submitted by counsel for the State, petitioners may avail benefit of Cash Security Scheme in accordance with policy of the Government. In view of the statement made above by counsel for the petitioner and State, all the aforementioned writ petitions are disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE October 21, 2009 rps 4