CWP No.12117 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No.12117 of 2011 Date of decision October 14, 2011 Dhaliwal Rice and General Mills ....... Petitioner Versus Food Corporation of India and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. K. B. Raheja, Advocate Mr. D. S. Malwai, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.5. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?Yes K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The petitioner challenges the order blacklisting the petitioner Rice Mill on the ground that CBI has recommended the blacklisting for alleged supply of BRL rice for the year 2005. The CBI report is said to have been made in the year 2008 and an annual report had also been made on that basis by the FCI Head quarters on 5.3.2010. 2. The petitioner challenges this order on the ground that the petitioner has been affecting the supply for the various years after milling the same and they have been all received without any objection. CWP No.12117 of 2011 2 The only time when an objection was made for a supply of the year 2005 that the quality had suffered, the petitioner had responded to the notice demanding replacement by promptly affording such replacement. The petitioner gives tabulation of various supplies effected from the crop year 2004,2005,2010 and 2011 showing that there had been no balance till the year 2010. 3. The challenge now is on the basis that when the respondents have received the stocks at all times without any complaint and particularly obtained replacement for the stocks which were found to be BRL for the year 2004-05, the respondent's action blacklisting the petitioner for an alleged report or recommendation from the CBI is untenable. The petitioner states that no case is registered or pending against him in any Court on the basis of the alleged report. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that the petitioner had filed a writ petition for the very same relief earlier in CWP No. 9648 of 2011 and it was disposed of on 29.6.2011. The petitioner cannot have the same relief through yet another writ petition and the same is barred by res judicata. I have seen through the judgment rendered already by this Court in the above case. The Court had merely dealt with the issue of supply for the relevant year and held that no further orders were called for, under the circumstances. It was not as if the petitioner had abandoned his claim and if the Court itself had not dealt with the issue of blacklisting on merits, there could be no bar of res judicata. 4. The counsel for the respondents contends that at the time when further supplies for the year 2006 to 2010 had been made by the petitioner, they had not been made aware of the CBI report on 31.3.2008 and the recommendations for blacklisting the petitioner. This contention that the respondents had not known about the CBI report cannot be true, for, they could not have even asked for replacement without a CWP No.12117 of 2011 3 definite information secured through some source that the supplies effected were of BRL variety. Having allowed the contract to continue for subsequent years and when there have been no issues of quality, there is simply no justification for blacklisting the petitioner. The impugned order blacklisting the petitioner is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 14 , 2011 archana