C.W.P. No.17444 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.17444 of 2009 Date of Decision: 12.01.2010 M/s Maa Sharda Rice and General Mills ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. O.P. Goel, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Advocate for the FCI. Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for Markfed. 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 writ petition challenges a proceeding issued by the State of Punjab cancelling the allotment of “Shellers” for the year 2009-2010 that included amongst 13 mill owners, the name of the petitioner also. It is an admitted case that the petitioner had been allotted the supply of paddy for milling by the State Agency- Markfed during the last three years. The cancellation was effected on the basis that a decision had been taken that no C.W.P. No.17444 of 2009 -2- business should be done with mills declared as blacklisted by CBI/FCI for delivering Below Rejection Limit (BLR) rice or if they had been “defaulter mills”. The attempt of the petitioner was to show that the petitioner had not been blacklisted either by CBI or FCI nor was it disqualified as a defaulter mill. The statement showing the position of ban imposed on the mills, whose stocks had been found below the limits under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PFA) or the mills, which were blacklisted for BLR rice do not contain the name of the petitioner. However, the ostensible reason for cancellation appears to be that the mill is established in the premises, a portion of which belonged to one Dhariwal Mill, which has been shown as a defaulter. It is an admitted case that the petitioner is a transferee of the property and is not shown to be either a relative of Dhariwal or a partner or a director or an owner, which was associated in any way presently or in the past with the defaulter-Dhariwal Mill. The policy considerations of the State do not contemplate the exclusion of the benefit to the transferee and there is no basis on which the cancellation has to be made against the petitioner. 2. Even while setting aside the cancellation as regards the direction for supply, it has to be observed that in the matter of choice of the Mills for awarding contracts, they shall consider all the eligible mill owners with all fairness, for in the matter of grant of State largesse, the State shall act without arbitrariness or C.W.P. No.17444 of 2009 -3- discriminatory practices that would fall foul of Article 14 of the Constitution. For any act of discrimination, if it is ever practised, the petitioner will have independent remedy and presently no relief in any mandatory form that any supply shall be effected by the State agency is granted. Suffice it for the purpose of the relief in the writ petition that cancellation order which is challenged is quashed. 3. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. It is needless to state in respect of the supplies already effected to the petitioner mill by the State Agency, the petitioner shall mill the same and collect the contract charges from the State Agency. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 12, 2010 Pankaj*