THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17392 of 2008 Date:12.07.2011 Between: M/s. Vamshi Industries, Karimnagar District ..... Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Karimnagar District and another .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.Prabhakar Rao Counsel for Respondent No.1: None appeared Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri B.Anjaneyulu, standing counsel for FCI The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in deducting a sum of Rs.1,13,670.70ps from the Bill bearing No.9432 dated 28.03.2008 payable to the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is a rice mill, which supplied boiled rice of 200 quintals under the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1894. Respondent No.2 has issued the impugned bill, whereunder certain deductions were made. Even though the prayer in the writ petition mentioned the sum of Rs.1,13,670.70ps as the disputed amount, at the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the actual sum in dispute is Rs.89,000/-. The learned counsel further submitted that no specific reasons have been shown for deduction of Rs.89,000/- from the bill payable to the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit, it is inter alia stated that while the petitioner had supplied 200 quintals of boiled rice, it has purchased 1780 quintals of paddy from the farmers from 01.10.2007 to 16.11.2007 and that the additional bonus payable to the farmers worked out to Rs.89,000/-, which sum was deducted from the bill payable to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this action is wholly fallacious for the reason that while the rice supplied by the petitioner was only 200 quintals, respondent No.2 cannot deduct the additional bonus on the paddy not supplied to it. He has further submitted that no prior notice was issued to the petitioner before coming to the unilateral conclusion that the petitioner has not paid the additional bonus to the farmers. Sri B.Anjaneyulu, the learned standing counsel for respondent No.2, submitted that the impugned bill was prepared on the information furnished by the District Supply Officer concerned and that respondent No.2 has no objection if the authorities at the District level reconsider the case of the petitioner. None appeared for respondent No.1 at the hearing. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents ought not to have come to the unilateral conclusion that the petitioner has not paid the additional bonus to the farmers. It is the case of the petitioner that such bonus was paid and had a notice been given to it, it would have satisfied the authorities concerned on such payment. Failure to issue prior notice before deduction constitutes violation of the principles of natural justice. Moreover, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, whether the petitioner is liable to pay additional bonus on 1780 quintals of paddy or not ought to have been ascertained after giving notice to the petitioner. Had a notice been given by the District Officials concerned to the petitioner, these anomalies would have been rectified. For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The petitioner is permitted to make a detailed representation to the Joint Collector, Karimnagar District, along with the material, if any, in support of the representation, within a period of two weeks from today; (ii) The Joint Collector, Karimnagar, shall consider the representation and examine the case of the petitioner against deduction of sum of Rs.89,000/- towards purported non-payment of additional bonus to the farmers; and (iii) The Joint Collector, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the parties concerned, shall pass an appropriate order on the petitioner’s representation and communicate the same to the petitioner and respondent No.2 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of representation from the petitioner. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.22594 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 12th July, 2011 GHN