IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1037 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 11/06/2008 in WP NO : 11874 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: M/s.Gopala Krishna Rice & Ground Nut Mill, Pedana Rep.by its Managing PArtner Mr.Chaluvadi Anjaneyulu, S/o.Late Satyanarayana R/o.Machilipatnam, Krishna District ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Sri Kantheti Pullaiah S/o.Mahalakshmaiah Machilipatnam, Krishna District 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the Commissioner , Ex-Officio Secretary, Civil Supplies, Hyderabad 3 The District Collector, Krishna at Machilipatnam 4 The District supply Officer, Krishna district at Machilipatnam 5 The Asst.Grain Purchasing Officer, Krishna District at Machilipatnam .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant : MR.M.S.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri K. Durga Prasad Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 : GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 8638 of 2008 Between: 1 M/s. Gopala Krishna Rice & Ground Nut Mill, Pedana, rep by his Managing Parner Mr. Chaluvadi Anjaneyulu, S/o Late Satyanarayan, R/o. Pedana, Krishna District. 2 Mr. Chaluvadi Anjaneyulu, s/o. Late Satyanarayan, R/o. Pedana, Krishna District, Managing Partner of M/s Gopala Krishna Rice & Ground Nut Mill, Pedana. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 2 The District Supply Officer, Krishna District at Machilipatnam 3 The Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer, Krishna District at Machilipatnam 4 M/s. Shanmukha Traders, Rep by its Proprietor Mr. Kantheti Pullaiah, S/o. Late K. Mahalakshmaiah, age 60 years, R/o. Near Santhosh Hotel, Chemmanagiripeta, Machilipatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 3 not issue working permission and/or eligibility certificate to the 4th respondent in respect of M/s. Gopala Krishna Rice & Ground Nut Mill, Pedana, Machilipatnam on the basis of forged and fabricated documents produced by the 4th respondent and to take necessary penal action for running the above rice mill illegally without valid permission from 16-11-2006. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.M.S.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for the respondent No.4 : Sri K.Durga Prasad The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1037 of 2008 And WRIT PETITION No.8638 of 2008 ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Since the above writ appeal and the writ petition do arise between the same parties and insofar as certain facts are concerned, they are overlapping and consequential in nature, in order to give a quietus to the litigation, both the matters are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Heard Sri M.S.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the writ appeal and petitioners in writ petition as well as Sri K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 in the writ appeal and respondent No.4 in the writ petition and also the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5 in the writ appeal and respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the writ petition. 3. W.A.No.1037 of 2008 is filed assailing the order, dated 11-06-2008, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, in W.P.No.11874 of 2008, permitting the petitioner therein (respondent No.1 in the appeal) to undertake custom milling of Paddy on Private Account. 4. The grievance of the petitioner in W.P.No.11874 of 2008 appears to be that he was the proprietor of M/s.Shanmukha Traders, Machilipatnam, involved in the business of Paddy and Rice and also a partner of M/s. Gopala Krishna Rice and Ground Nut Mill, Pedana, Krishna District. He made an application, to the District Collector, Krishna, who is the second respondent in the said writ petition, seeking to grant permit for undertaking custom milling of paddy on Private Account and on verification and enquiry, the District Collector, Krishna District, granted permission for undertaking custom milling for a quantity of 27,000 quintals of Paddy on Private Account through proceedings, dated 16-04-2008, subject to certain conditions, which have already been mentioned by the learned single Judge. It is contended that the petitioner has supplied 1920.000 Mts of rice towards levy to the Department and also Food Corporation of India and, therefore, he was entitled to receive permits for sale of levy free rice from the District Supply Officer, Krishna, the third respondent therein. 5. The said writ petition was contested by the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies contending that the petitioner has to make an application before respondent Nos.2 and 3 and, on verification, it is for respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider and issue permits. 6. Keeping in view the said submission, the learned single Judge, by order, dated 11-06-2008, disposed of the writ petition, the relevant portion of which reads as under: “Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make application before respondents 2 and 3 with regard to fulfillment of the conditions permitting him for undertaking custom milling of Paddy on Private Account. On filing such application, respondents 2 and 3 may consider and dispose of the same within one week from the date of receipt of such application. There shall be no order as to costs.” 7. From the above, it is obvious that the verification that was directed to be made by the authorities basing on any application made by the petitioner therein was with regard to fulfillment of the conditions imposed, permitting him to undertake custom milling of Paddy. In other words, if the conditions are absolutely satisfied then only respondent Nos.2 and 3 can consider and dispose of the application made by the petitioner. It is further obvious that the learned single Judge did not pass any positive order in favour of the petitioner therein, because there are several questions of fact, which obviously could not be gone into by the learned single Judge. 8. Now, this writ appeal came to be filed by the appellant-M/s. Gopala Krishna Rice and Ground Nut Mill, Pedana, on the ground that it is a registered firm to which the first respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner in W.P.No.11874 of 2008”) is a Partner and without making the appellant as a party, the petitioner in W.P.No.11874 of 2008 has filed the said writ petition and obtained orders, as referred to above, from a learned single Judge of this Court. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the averments of the petitioner in W.P.No.11874 of 2008, in all fours, are false. While refuting the said averments, he brought to the notice of this Court various other facts, which could not be brought before the learned single Judge. 10. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.11874 of 2008 that pursuant to the order passed by the learned single Judge, upon the application filed by the petitioner, permission had already been granted by the competent authorities and, therefore, the cause in the writ appeal has become infructuous. 11. A counter affidavit is filed by the District Supply Officer, Krishna District, representing the fourth respondent in the appeal. 12. Nowhere, either in the affidavit, filed in support of writ appeal, or in the counter affidavit, it is mentioned as to whether any permission had been granted in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.11874 of 2008, nor there is any information forthcoming except the oral assertive statement of the petitioner in W.P.No.11874 of 2008 as regards granting of permission. Therefore, we do not feel it expedient to go into the aspect as to whether the permit was granted or not? If really, permit was not granted, it is again for the petitioner in W.P.No.11874 of 2008 to ventilate his grievance in an appropriate manner. 13. Obviously and as admitted by the appellant herein, the petitioner in W.P.No.11874 of 2008 has been a Partner of the appellant firm i.e., M/s. Gopala Krishna Rice and Ground Nut Mill, Pedana. It is the specific contention of the petitioner in W.P.No.11874 of 2008 that he filed the writ petition in the capacity of Proprietor of M/s.Shanmukha Traders, Machilipatnam, which is a lessee to the appellant-M/s. Gopala Krishna Rice and Ground Nut Mill, Pedana, for a limited period only. Therefore, the appellant firm has no locus standi to make any claim or seek any relief from the competent authorities i.e., respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein. 14. It is further obvious that the question that arise for consideration is as to whether the petitioner in W.P.No.11874 of 2008 can file a writ petition in his individual capacity, while claiming as Partner of M/s. Gopala Krishna Rice and Ground Nut Mill, Pedana, who is the appellant herein? If so, whether he can seek any permit for undertaking custom milling of Paddy in the appellant firm? 15. Admittedly, as observed by the learned single Judge, any permit shall be accorded by respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein, on fulfillment of the conditions prescribed. Therefore, it is for respondent Nos.3 and 4 (respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the writ petition) to verify as to whether the said conditions are fulfilled or not and whether the claims of the petitioner in W.P.No.11874 of 2008 and the appellant herein can be entertained or not? 16. These are all pure questions of fact, which cannot be gone into by this Court. Therefore, in our considered view, the learned single Judge had rightly disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner therein to make an application and upon such application being filed, the competent authorities are directed to dispose of the said application. 17. In view of the above, suffice it to close the writ appeal with liberty to the appellant herein to ventilate its grievance by way of making an application before the competent authorities i.e., respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein and upon such application being filed, the same shall be considered and disposed of, in accordance with law. 18. At this juncture, since it is represented by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Government had already filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that application had already been filed by the appellant herein, respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein are directed to dispose of the application filed by the appellant herein, in accordance with law. 19. Coming to W.P.No.8638 of 2008, M/s. Gopala Krishna Rice and Ground Nut Mill, Pedana, represented by its Managing Partner (appellant in W.A.No.1037 of 2008) and the Managing Partner in his individual capacity, filed the present writ petition, seeking the following relief: “……to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 3 not issue working permission and/or eligibility certificate to the 4th respondent in respect of M/s. Gopala Krishna Rice & Ground Nut Mill, Pedana, Machilipatnam on the basis of forged and fabricated documents produced by the 4th respondent and to take necessary penal action for running the above rice mill illegally without valid permission from 16-11-2006 and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 20. It is stated that the first petitioner is the owner of Rice and Dal Mill, situate at Pedana, and the petitioner in W.P.No.11874 of 2008 was the lessee of the fourth respondent Rice Mill i.e., M/s.Shanmukha Traders, Machilipatnam. Originally, though he was not a partner when the rice mill was leased out to him, subsequently he became a partner by purchasing the share of his paternal uncle in the year 1996. It is also stated that an unanimous resolution had been passed by the partners on 10-11-1998, including the petitioner in W.P.No.11874 of 2008 and his son, who are partners and also signatories to the said resolution, authorizing the second petitioner herein to give the rice mill on lease. Thereafter a fresh lease deed was executed every year and the last deed was executed on 20-11-2005, which would be in force till 15-11-2006. After expiry of the lease, the District Collector, Krishna District, had not granted any working permission for the rice mill as required under law. Therefore, respondent No.4 herein has filed W.P.No.11874 of 2008 and obtained orders from this Court. 21. It is also stated that some criminal complaints were also lodged before the Magistrates concerned against the petitioner in W.P.No.11874 of 2008 and the same are pending investigation. It is also stated that though they have sent a representation on 25-11-2007 to the Assistant Grain Purchasing Officer, Krishna District, the third respondent herein, not to grant any working permission or eligibility certificate to anybody, including the petitioner in W.P.No.11874 of 2008, instead of taking action against the petitioner in W.P.No.11874 of 2008, the third respondent had directed the petitioners to produce various documents, which were allegedly submitted by the petitioners. In spite of issuing several telegrams to respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to issue eligibility certificate without working permission, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been issuing the same to the petitioner in W.P.No.11874 of 2008 for extraneous considerations. Hence, the present writ petition. 22. In view of the above allegations made by the petitioners herein, coupled with the allegations made by the petitioner in W.P.No.11874 of 2008, it appears that there are several questions of fact, which are to be gone into and decided. For eg:- (1) The rights of the petitioner in W.P.No.11874 of 2008 and the petitioners herein in the leased out rice Mill viz., M/s.Shanmukha Traders, Machilipatnam, (2) effect of the unanimous resolution passed by the partners on 20-11-2005 to which the petitioner in W.P.No.11874 of 2008 and his son are also signatories for leasing out the rice mill, and (3) in view of the said lease, whether respondents Nos.1 to 3 herein can grant any working permission, as sought for by the petitioner in W.P.No.11874 of 2008? 23. Admittedly, since criminal proceedings are already initiated by the petitioners herein against the petitioner in W.P.No.11874 of 2008, which are pending, the other contentious issues cannot be gone into by this Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, nor it is desirable for this Court to go into all those issues, which can only be gone into by the competent authorities or by the appropriate Court, as the case may be. 24. Therefore, suffice it to close the writ petition with liberty to the petitioners herein to ventilate their grievances by way of making a representation/application, if not already made, before the competent authorities i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2, along with entire material, and upon such representation/application being made, respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably on priority basis. 25. With the above observations and directions, both the writ appeal and the writ petition are closed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA __________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 17-11-2008. Msr. THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1037 of 2008 And WRIT PETITION No.8638 of 2008 17-11-2008 (Msr)