CWP No.15218 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.15218 of 2009 Date of Decision: 06.12.2010 **** M/s. Bharat Rice Mills & Ors. . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Vipul Jindal, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. AS Grewal, Addl.AG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioners are rice-shellers in the State of Punjab. They are aggrieved by the policies dated 10.09.2007 and 17.09.2007 (Annexures P13 & P14, respectively) issued for determination of their milling capacity. They also seek quashing of the order dated 09.09.2009 (Annexure P16) passed in purported compliance to the directions earlier issued by this Court whereby their claim for increasing the milling capacity, has been rejected. (2). The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit defending the subject policies and maintaining their uniform applicability. CWP No.15218 of 2009.doc - 2 – (3). When this matter came up for hearing before a Co-ordinate Bench on 5th March, 2010, it was observed that having regard to the issues involved, the petitioners as well as the respondents shall give names of the subject experts who are competent to examine as to whether the impugned guidelines issued by the State Government have any scientific basis. Thereafter, the Bench passed the following order on May 19, 2010:- “Learned counsel for the respondents has produced before the Court a list containing five names of experts who are competent to determine the milling capacity with reference to the machineries in rice mill. By an order dated 05.03.2010, this Court had called upon both the parties to give names of experts who would determine whether the guidelines issued by the State contained in Annexure P12 to P14 have any scientific basis and whether it would be possible to assess the milling capacity on the basis of the guidelines provided. Learned counsel for the petitioner has suggested the name of an expert Mr. Dharam Pal Rathee, District Manager, Quality Control (retd.) who has an experience of 35 years. Learned counsel for the States has given names of give persons and he has suggested among others Mr. Ajaivir Singh Sarao, District Controller, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Sangrur, as a competent person. Both of them shall jointly examined the guidelines referred to in the writ petition and submit a report, if they have same opinion in their assessment. If there is any difference of opinion between them, each one of them shall make an independent report and submit to the Court at the next date of hearing.” CWP No.15218 of 2009.doc - 3 – (4). Pursuant thereto, both the subject experts have given their reports dated 22nd July, 2010 and 26th July, 2010, contradicting each other, which are also on record. (5). Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the scope of interference by this Court in such like policy matters and/or the issues involving subject expertise, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondent-authorities to objectively consider the viewpoint of both the subject experts and/or other relevant material and update the policy guidelines for determination of the milling capacity of the rice mills, to be made applicable from August, 2011 and/or the next milling season, whichever is earlier. (6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 06.12.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE