-!rl ^ •(MS!ts!'.5"^fts'3%1SI"is lg.6'fepg-&" ;^-6-S^^^-:^; T 1?^ S^K,^ ^•^x ^f".^i^ ^y IN THE HI6H COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION FC1 N0. 13^ ^ OF 2007 P6TITIONERS : ^-1. Rajim Rice Mill Association, a registered association of rice millers of Nayapara, Rajim, bistrict Raipur, acting through its Secretary, Shri Sanjay Bangani, son of Late Gulabchand Bangani, aged about 37 years, Rajim, A^^%^ R°iP"r. 2. Sanjay Bangani, son of Late Sulabchand Bangani, aged about 37 years, Secretary, Rajim Rice Millers Association, Nayapara, Rajim, DistricT Raipur. >'•.''-" A.-' ^' ~<Bts. <-^i=ri"'"':t"'""-;;<Si^.> /''^^y%, ff^- /^""""S. ^ i-ft^;—;v*: vs RESPON&ENTS .cf ^y ^" >«» '''.'^ ^' y 1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Consumers Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, New Delhi. 2. The Food Corporation of India, a body constituted under the relevant provisions of the Food Corporation Act, 1964 having inter-alia amongst other office a regional "^fSsi.SSSt^scis^^a, office at Kapa, Raipur. 3. The Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Raipur. WRIT PETITION UNOER ARTICLES 2^6 &.Z27-OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INblA [ WIGHCOURTOFCHHATTIS(3ARH:BIIASPUR WRn-FIETn"ION(CVN0.19920F 2007 PETITIONERS Rajim Rice Mill Association & Another RESPONDENTS Versus Union of India & Others ^ Postfor pronouncement ofthe order on H day of November, 2010 '<!: Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.19920F 2007 PETITIQNERS RESPONDENTS Rajim Rice Mill Association & Another Versus Union of India & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 & 227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri B.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate the Union of India/ respondent No.1 Shri B.P. Gupta, Advocate for the respondents No.2 & 3. O RD E R (Delivered on this If'Qay of November, 2010) By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent Food Corporation of India (for short "the FCI") not to collect 1% extra rice against the supply of paddy from the members of the petitioner No.1 association for kharif marketing season 2006-2007 in viewofthe circular dated 4-10-2002 (Annexure- P/2). The indisputable facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioners, are that the petitioner No.1 is an association of rice millers at Nayapara, Rajim, District Raipur and the petitioner No.2 is the Secretary ofthe petitioner No.1 association. The FCI purchased paddy from the farmers directly and thereafter, for conversion of paddy into rice the paddy is given to the rice millers in accordance with the contract to produce raw rice and par-boiled rice. According to Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the rice millers under the contract are an obligation to supply 67% raw-rice and 68% par-boiled rice. On actual weighment i.e. 100% fixed weighment, the outturn ratio is to be obtained 1% more i.e. 68% raw rice and 69% par-boiled rice. By circular dated 8. 4-10-2002, thedifterehCBof 1% in case of68% raw rice and 69% par-boiled rice has been removed. There is no dispute that on the basis of recommendafion made by the TariffCommissiononmilling charges for raw rice @ Rs.15/- per quintal and for par-boiled rice @ Rs.25/- per quintal has been determined. Shri Sharma, would submit that despite the clear instructions dated 4-10-2002, the FCI authorities are asking for 1% extra that is unreasonable and arbitrary. Thus, the demand of 1 % extra may be quashed. On the other hand, Shri Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the FCI/respondents No.2 & 3, would submit that the entire dealing with the rice millers is based on the agreement executed between the rice millers and the FCI. In the agreement itselfthere is a provision for percentage of outturn of CG Paddy 2005-06 delivered on 'as is where is basis' of booked weight. 67% for raw rice, 68% for par-boiled rice and percentage of outturn of CG Paddy 2005-06 delivered on 100% weighment basis is 68% for raw rice and 69% for par-boiled rice. Thus, the FCI is not asking more than what was prescribed under the agreement because delivery was on 100% weighment basis. Thus, the outturn percentage was accordingly 68% foc raw rice and 69% for par-boiled rice. 1 have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. It is evident that on actual weighment of 100% outturn ratio is 68% for raw rice and 69% for par-boiled rice. The issue raised in this petition is covered by the provisions of the agreement between the rice millers and the FCI. After having executed the agreement the 9. WS3S ^ ^Sffiilii^^ petitionerAssociation cannot turn arpund and take contrary stand to the provisions of the agreement. The circular dated 4-10-2002 provides that supply of paddy on book weight basis i.e. 'as is where is basis' should be discouragedand all efforts may be made to supply on actual weightment basis. Thus, the circular is not contrary to the provisions of the agreement. The circular also provides for supply of raw rice @ 68% and @ 69% par- boiled rice on actual basis i.e. on 100 %weightment basis. The agreement was signed and executed between the parties after about 5 years of the circular dated 4-10-2002. Contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that percentage of outturn of CG Paddy 2005-06 in case of raw rice was 67% and in case of par-boiled rice was 68% is contrary to the provisions of the agreement, as 67% of outturn in case of raw rice and 68% in case of par-boiled rice was on 'as is where is basis'. There is no dispute that the paddy was delivered on 100% weighment basis, therefore, clause ii (e) of the agreement would be applicable. Even otherwise, the collection of rice ha^ been done, as this relates to the kharif marketing season 2006-2007. Payment has accordingly been made and nothing survives in this petition for adjudication, at this stage. No demand certificate has also been issued. 11 12. In view of the foregoing, the contention of Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that 1% extra is beyond the instruction dated 4-10-2002 merits rejection. In the result, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge