SN THE CHHATTISGARH HIGHT COURT OF JUDICATURE ATBILASPUR W.P. N0. / 2001 PETITIONERS :1)./ M/s RAJPAL RICE MiLL, NEORA .v../^' ^^ ^c^ L^^^^s-"* ^•yy" ^^;,..- THROUGH : RAJKUMAR RAJPAL, AGED 34 YEARS, S/o SHRi TIKAM DAS RAJPAL, PARTNER,VILLAGE TULSI, PO. NEORA (TILDA), DIST. RAIPUR (CG) ^ ^ :y^€^ RESPONDENTS \ '^^ •^y \. •?<-1 ^\.^^ ^^^\^' 2) M/s GINDLANI RICE MILL THROUGH: RAMCHANDRA GINDLANI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/o LATE SHRI NANDLAL GINDLANI, VILLAGE TULSI, PO.NEORA (TILDA), DIST. RAIPUR (CG) 3) MOTILAL AGRAWAL, S/o SHRi TARACHAND AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/s MUNKA CHAWAL UDYOG, VILLAGE SINODHA, NEORA (TILDA), DiST. RAiPUR(CG) Vs :1f UNiON OF INDiA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF FOOD & CIVIL SUPPL1ES, NEWDELHI. 2) , STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH : ITS SECRETARY DEPTT.OF FOOD & CiViL SUPPLIES, & CONSUMER PROTECTION RAIPUR (CG) 3) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, THROUGH : ZONAL MANAGER(WEST), MISTRI BHAWAN, MUMBAI. 4) DIST. MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, DISTRICT OFFICE, RAIPUR (CG). ,<0 ^ -2- i() PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRITS IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT. ORDER/DIRECTIONS TO THE RESPONDENTS. ^ o 1t Hrt O) ^ ^ ——-——-—l.-._ ^ ^ ^ ^i ^ r'\ s & ^ I" £ .^3 ^^^' ^- "°< J ? ^ t^=^fc ^ ^'- ^ =^-^":^- XI-HC-22 3n^['5BT fN^'^Tit^T 'iT^NT^Tr ^^i ';:?T£TR;P:[, "^fraTT^, t^rray Writ Petition No«1443/2001 "^ '^re^y' .^rt^r ^OT^R ^rfN i, learned counsel for petitioner^ IjnatructJLbns from Shri A^s» Gaharwar 27/9/2001 Shri Dhirendra Mishlca, Shri UsN. Deo< on for respondentno^1, Shri Rajeev Shr.JLvasjtava^ learned counsel fcc the respondent no»2» ShriB.p^ ©uptaolejarned counsel for responderibs nos.3 & 4 (FCI), O R th^t shjall Mijshra, petitic^ner On 16/8/2001 notice! was passed to ths effect the tmpugned order dated by the District Manager^ tended by Shri Dhirendra petitioner thafc the 2000 qutotals, o£boiled ricji Naila^ ht this stage^ Mr respondents nos^ 3 and 4 earlier deposited and some depositedc It is also that foc want of productioi^ of' r ice could not be depos ^N^pfrr 'WT^f ^ ft^t "^^OTaiT^T D E R was issued and an interim order until the next date of hearing 30J/7/2001 (Annexure-P/10) issued remain suspended^ It JLs con- ^ learned counsel for tbs had brought and unloaded ricje in the premises of F<»C^I at .P^ Gupta^ learned counsel for that some quantity was l^ore quantity was sitosequently furt|ier contended by Shri Gupta ti.ot^ eertifJLc^t^. certain quantity ;i|:ed^ However^ it 1s submXtted submits [Tf^ ^R^^ ••2 ^rr^^r f^Tr^ 3Tlt^T W^^ €T^i. 31T^T^^ (^f^^1?) W^? ^^TW ^f?"cf concerned Authority ought| according to Mr. Mishra, aboyt 15 days the trucks '^prf^R^T TIT^Tt ^ ftT:3t if^TCTT ^5Tl^3TT^T •• 2 Shrl Mishra that produeti^on Gertificate duly obtained from the Ccxnpetent Aathorjity has since been submittedo It is further submitted bjy Shri Mishra that in view of interim order passed by t|iis Courton 16/8/2001, the to haye verifkAand accepte^ ^ the supply of rice bythjswritpetitioner, Powever, jlear ned counael for t^he ^ere lydLng there and in the process loss was also sustained b^: t;he writ petitioner^ According to Mr. Gupta, learned coyjrasel for respondents nos • 3 and 4, upon verification, if ric^ supplied by the writ petitioner meets the minlum standard However, it iscontended jfchat if riee thus supplied is not good in terms of speaifioi regard^ then the Authoriti ittion/standard laid down in this { has no alternative^ but to reject, It appears that I need no|t give any finding as re^rds the j quality of rice» However goodfs, the Cc»npetent Auth and take final deGision o there is no reason to reject^ ^inee rice is.-also perishable ^rity should iinmediately^J^ri^ |£ acceptance or rejectJLon of the supply already xnade by th4 petitioner. This shall be done subject to submissibn of ^roduction certificate; 'j'hough it is submltted by Stari Mishra that in respect of"^< other persons such certif.jLcate is not insisted upon, if it is how the thing is doipe, then the petitioner must CCTnply with the requirement of si|tomission of produGtion certiflcate frcan the Canoetent Authoritv. GRPRJ—FS/31i—1/2001—50,000. o.3 Xf-HC-22 r^i" '^WR;FT, '^TrlwT^, t^[re~y \^Y '^^s?' ^T^r^i •{^ira-511^1 ^^W^Tlt^T 3Tlt^T 'i^T^R ^1N ^N^pfh;f 'HP^ff ^ ft^f TfWZR ^T 3:i1^R ^IT^F «• 3 o Let it be done withinl ^ertain quantity of rice is ^B no harm supplying sample ojl j^etitiones:^ if requested^ in ^hould also be done in <a<wn in this regard. The petition is dispo^ed of» accordfcnce ten days from t oday^ If r^jected^ in my view^ there rejected rice to ttae .his regard^ However^ ^uch with proeedure laid Certified copy as per rules<» ^ Sd/- Chief Justice