1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1693 OF 2011 [Sweta Rice Mill and others .vrs. Food Corporation of India and others] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 22, 2011. The matter is being considered since long by this Court. We find that the procedure contemplated under Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Rice (Levy on Rice-Millers) Order, 1989 (referred to as “1989 Order”) has been followed. However, the petitioners did not insist for the procedure envisages by Rule 6 (4) to be completed. The officers of respondent no.1 also did not complete that procedure. We have perused the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in C.W.P. No.19835 of 2005 decided on 20.11.2006 and also the chart produced before us showing the details of acceptance, declaration of BRL, date of giving information for replacement etc. The 2 stock of rice supplied by the respective petitioners either as levy rice or as CMR is found to be beyond rejection limit (BRL) and hence the petitioners have been asked to replace it. The petitioners have approached this court with grievance that these findings reached behind their back cannot be used to their prejudice. It is further contended that refusal of respondent no.1 to accept further supplies from the petitioners is, therefore, arbitrary. Shri Samudra, learned counsel for respondent no.1 to 5, states that procedure as contemplated by Rule 6(4) ought to have been followed and as that procedure has not been followed, respondent no.1 has directed departmental action against its officer and staff. Shri Kalra, learned counsel holding for Shri S.K. Mishra, learned ASGI for respondent no.6, contends that procedure prescribed in Maharashtra Rules is to protect interest of public and public revenue and its violation cannot be countenanced. We find that after the procedure as contemplated under Rule 5 is followed, Rule 6 (3) requires respondent no.1 to effect 90% payment towards the cost of stock supplied. Sub Rule 4 then contemplates obtaining of three samples of the stock supplied and this is to be done in presence of the 3 representatives of miller, who has supplied that stock. Those samples are to be preserved and after obtaining quality report of rice contained therein, appropriate further action is taken or balance payment is released. Here, in this case, the petitioners are not pointing out the date on which the steps as contemplated under Rule 6 (4) of above mentioned 1989 Order have been taken. We, therefore, find substance in objections and contentions raised by respondent no.6. The provision envisaged in public interest to save loss to public revenue have been flouted in any case not only by the petitioners but also staff and officer of respondent no.1. In this situation, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. With liberty to the petitioners to take such other steps are are open to them in the law, we dispose of the petition. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande