IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 OP.No. 18850 of 2001(R) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.NIRADEEPAM ROLLER FLOUR MILLS, THURUTHY, CHANGANASSERY, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.F.SHAJI. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL THOMAS(T) SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD. GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. SMT.MOLLY JACOB,SC,SUPPLYCO THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.No. 18850/01. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.18TH SEPTEMBER, 97. P2. COPY OF THE TENDER. P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.16.6.99. P4. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.5.3.99. P5. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.9.7.99. P6. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.7.12.99. P7. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.7.12.99. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 18850 of 2001 ================== Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges the orders demanding penalty for supplying of atta for ration distribution, which contained moisture in excess of prescribed limits. The petitioner submits that in respect of an identical matter, a learned Single Judge of this Court has disposed of O.P.No.36167/2000, by judgment dated 14.3.2007. The counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that this original petition also may be disposed of in terms of that judgment. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent points out that in similar cases viz., O.P.Nos.33007/2000 and 35285/2000, two other learned Judges of this Court have dismissed similar writ petitions. 3. I have considered the contentions of the parties. 4. The judgment in O.P.No.36167/2000 reads thus: “The petitioner is challenging demand of penalty for supply of Atta for ration distribution which contained moisture in excess of prescribed limits. Respondent is a Government of Kerala undertaking with which petitioner had contract for supply of commodities conforming to the standard prescribed. The impugned proceedings clearly show that the materials supplied by the petitioner contained excess moisture for which penalty is levied in accordance with tender conditions. If petitioner disputes allegation of excess moisture content, the matter could be decided only by taking evidence and therefore it cannot be settled in writ proceeding. The O.P. is therefore closed leaving freedom to the petitioner to settle dispute through civil suit or in arbitration, if contract provides for it.” 5. It is true that one learned Judge has relegated one o.p.18850/01 2 petitioner to civil court, whereas two other learned Judges have dismissed similar writ petitions. I choose to follow the decision on merits. Elaborate reasons have been stated by the two learned judges in their judgments and I am in respectful agreement with the same. Accordingly, this original petition is dismissed following the judgments in O.P.Nos.33007/2000 and 35285/2000. I leave open the contentions of the petitioner in respect of interest. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 18850 of 2001-R ================== J U D G M E N T 24th May, 2010