HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.31754 of 2011 Date: December 01, 2011 Between: Sri Saikanchana Modern Rice Mills, Rep. By its Proprietor, Jaddu Bhaskara Rao, Seesali, West Godavari District. … Petitioner And 1. District Collector (Civil Supplies), West Godavari District at Eluru & 4 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.31754 of 2011 O R D E R: The petitioner, a propriety concern, has challenged the notice of the first respondent vide Mktg.M1/22(1)/Rabi/2010- 11/CMR dated 22.11.2011 directing it to deliver certain quantity of rice which it had short delivered while undertaking the custom milling of paddy. 2. In seeking the aforesaid relief the petitioner seeks to enforce a private agreement which is said to be orally entered into between the petitioner and 4th respondent, District Civil Supply Officer. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents entrusted him 27849.20 kgs. of paddy for milling. On the oral instructions of respondents 3 to 5, the petitioner delivered the resultant rice to the Food Corporation of India. The Food Corporation of India rejected 4 consignments on the ground that the rice was of substandard quality. According to the petitioner, it undertook the milling of the same paddy which was entrusted to him and that the substandard quality of the resultant rice cannot be attributed to it. The petitioner therefore states that it is not responsible for any deficiency in that regard and hence the 3rd respondent is not justified in issuing the impugned notice dated 22.11.2011. 4. From the notice it appears that out of the quantity of 27849.20 kgs. Paddy handed over to the petitioner, the petitioner short delivered a quantity of 604.75 Mts. Therefore, the 3rd respondent has issued the impugned notice calling upon the petitioner to make good the shortage on or before 28.11.2011. 5. The aforesaid facts would clearly show that the arrangement between the parties is purely contractual. The petitioner has undertaken custom milling of paddy entrusted by the first respondent as a miller. Admittedly, there is no statutory obligation on the petitioner to undertake custom milling entrusted by the first respondent. Milling was entrusted to the petitioner purely as a private contract. The entrustment of custom milling is thus not traceable in any provision of law nor the first respondent is discharging any statutory function in entrusting the custom milling to the petitioner. Further, whether the petitioner was entrusted with low quality paddy and whether the substandard quality of rice is attributable to him and whether the contents of the impugned notice dated 22.11.2011 are correct, are all disputed questions of facts, which cannot be gone into in this writ petition. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J Date: December 01, 2011. BSB