COCP No.1056 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1056 of 2008 Date of decision: March 09, 2009 M/s DSL Rice Mills …..PETITIONER Versus R.N.Kaura,District Manager (Officiating), Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Ludhiana and another. …..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr Jatin Salwan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr Sameer Sachedeva, Advocate for the respondents. T.P.S.MANN, J. (Oral): In pursuance of order dated 4.3.2009, Gurnam Singh, District Manager, Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Ludhiana, Pawan Kumar, District Manager, Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Fatehgarh Sahib, and Surinder Nath, Manager (Quality Control), Food Corporation of India, Sanghol, District Fatehgarh Sahib have come present. On 16.2.2009, while disposing of CM No.3345-CII of 2009 filed on behalf of the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation for a permission to get the paddy milled from alternative rice Millers in view of the refusal by the petitioner to lift the same, it was directed that the petitioner shall lift the stock of 3289.65 MTs of paddy from the Warehouse of the Corporation and the exercise of lifting the paddy be started from February 21, 2009 and the same completed within one month thereafter. The main contempt petition filed by the petitioner was fixed for COCP No.1056 of 2008 2 hearing for 4.3.2009. On that day, the said petition as well as another petition (COCP No.387 of 2009) filed by the petitioner for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for their wilful and intentional disobedience of the order dated 16.2.2009 passed in CM No.3345-CII of 2009 came up for hearing. It was stated on behalf of the petitioner in COCP No.387 of 2009 that the respondents had not allowed the petitioner to lift the paddy and in fact, respondent No.1 had directed the petitioner that in case it wanted to lift the paddy then in that eventuality it would have to supply the rice proportionately to the Food Corporation of India in advance, failing which the paddy would not be supplied. It was also pleaded that the respondents were forcing the petitioner to lift the paddy bags as such without getting them weighed, as according to the petitioner, the paddy was much less as compared to the normal weight. Learned counsel for the respondents has brought to the notice of the Court that as per the agreement arrived at between the parties, the delivery of paddy had to be made as per DFSC pattern on book weight basis and not on actual weight basis. However, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to letter dated 7.3.2008 (Annexure P-4) issued by the District Manager, Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Ludhiana and addressed to the District Manager, Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Fatehgarh Sahib wherein it was mentioned that the stock was to be issued to the petitioner in the presence of and to the full satisfaction of the proprietor of the petitioner firm or its authorized representative. Proper acknowledgment/receipt of stocks indicating complete details regarding number of bags, weight, variety, quantity and class of gunny bags etc. were to be obtained from the petitioner and submitted to the District Manager, COCP No.1056 of 2008 3 Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Ludhiana, under with intimation to the Warehouse Manager, State Warehousing, Sahnewal. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to letter dated 12.3.2008 (Annexure P-5) issued by the District Manager, Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Fatehgarh Sahib, wherein it was mentioned that proper acknowledgment of paddy (quantity and quality) delivered to the Miller be received daily on the letter-head of the Miller. Based on the same, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the paddy had to be delivered on the basis of actual weight and not on the basis of book weight. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the letter dated 7.3.2008 (Annexure P-4), wherein it was mentioned that the paddy was to be delivered on DFSC pattern basis. Moreover, in the letter dated 12.3.2008 (Annexure P-5), it was specifically mentioned that the paddy was to be shifted on book weight basis/DFSC pattern. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the petitioner was required to lift the paddy on DFSC pattern i.e. on the basis of book weight and not on the basis of actual weight. As the Court wanted to find out from the petitioner as to whether it was still ready to lift the paddy on the basis of DFSC pattern/book weight, the matter was adjourned in the pre-lunch session. Now during further hearing of the matter in the post-lunch session, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is not willing to lift the paddy on the basis of book weight. Only in case the paddy is delivered on the basis of actual weight that the petitioner can lift the same. It appears that the petitioner has no intention in lifting the paddy for milling the same. It is coming up with one excuse or the other so COCP No.1056 of 2008 4 as to avoid lifting and consequent milling of the paddy. Resultantly, it cannot be said that the respondents have wilfully and intentionally disobeyed the orders dated 4.6.2008 passed by the Division Bench while disposing of writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged. Consequently, the order passed on 16.2.2009 while disposing of CM No.3345-CII of 2009 is recalled. The concerned authorities are at liberty to get the paddy milled from alternative sources. (T.P.S.MANN) March 09, 2009 JUDGE Pds