IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23220 OF 2002 Between: Sri Lakshmi Parboiled Modern Rice Mill, Anumanchipalli (V), Jaggayyapeta (M), Represented by its Managing Director Attuluri Jaganadha Rao & 2 others …. Petitioners And District Manager, Food Corporation of India, District Office , Vijayawada, Krishna District & another …. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION 23220 OF 2002 ORDER: The petitioners have filed this writ petition, seeking to declare the proceedings issued by respondent No.1 in reference No.4(1)/1/2001-2002/Vol-II, dated 11-10-2002, ordering to recover transportation charges to the tune of Rs.1,07,913/-, Rs.1,07,913/- and Rs.71,630/- from the bills payable to petitioners 1 to 3 respectively, as illegal and arbitrary. Petitioners are the Rice Millers, supplying levy rice to the Government, as per the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 framed under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Earlier, they were supplying Levy Rice to respondent No.1 - Food Corporation of India at its godowns at C.W.C., Rayannapadu, C.W.C., Nidmanuru and K.C. Depot, Tadepalli. Thereafter, the Assistant Manager, Food Corporation of India, Vijayawada has issued circular dated 13-05-2002, notifying diversions of levy to be supplied by the petitioners to their godowns at SWC,Jaggaiahpet. Inspite of the said instructions issued on 13-05-2002, the petitioners have supplied the levy rice at the previous places i.e. C.W.C., Rayannapadu, C.W.C., Nidmanuru, K.C. Depot, Tadepalli. The supplies made by the petitioners at places other than Jaggaiahpet as indicated in the circular dated 13-05-2002, were accepted at those godowns and bills were duly paid, including the transport charges. But, subsequently, without issuing any notice to the petitioners, respondent No.1 has issued the impugned proceedings in reference No.4(1)/1/2001-2002/Vol-II, dated 11-10-2002, ordering to recover transportation charges to the tune of Rs.1,07,913/-, Rs.1,07,913/- and Rs.71,630/- from the subsequent bills payable to the petitioners, on the ground that such transportation charges were wrongly paid to them. Aggrieved by such recovery, the petitioners have filed this writ petition, seeking to declare the impugned proceedings as void, and to direct the respondents to refund the amounts recovered from them, with interest, as per the provisions under The Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993. It is further stated by the petitioners that though circular instructions were issued on 13-05-2002, asking them to supply levy at the godowns at Jaggaiahpet, as the respondents did not appoint procuring staff at Jaggaiahpet to receive the levy, they have supplied to the godowns, where they were supplying earlier, and the required space was also allotted to them in those godowns. It is the case of the petitioners that when such levies were accepted at the earlier godowns and the bills were also paid to them, including the transportation charges, it is not open for the respondents to recover any amounts towards transportation charges, from the bills payable for the subsequent supplies made by them. Respondent No.1 has filed counter affidavit, denying the allegations made by the petitioners. It is stated that petitioners were delivering mill levy rice to Food Corporation of India at CWC, Rayanapadu, CWC, Bhavanipuram and K.C. Depot, Tadepalli. Vide Proceedings No.4(1)/2001-2002, dated 13-05-2002, he gave instructions that the petitioners, along with other millers, were tagged to the State Housing Corporation at Jaggaiahpet, and therefore, they shall supply the levy rice at Jaggaiahpet delivery point, but, inspite of such instructions, the petitioners have supplied the levy rice at the godowns other than Jaggaiahpet. It is further stated by respondent No.1 that, as the transportation charges were allowed inadvertently, the same were recovered from the subsequent bills payable to the petitioners. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Supply of levy rice by the rice mill dealers is covered by the statutory control order i.e. The Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984, framed under Section 3 of The Essential Commodities Act, 1955. As per Clause 6 of the said Order, the rice required to be sold to the Food Corporation of India/State Corporation under Clauses 3 and 4, shall be delivered by the licensed miller or the licensed dealer, as the case may be, to the Purchase Officer, in such lots, in such manner, at such place and at such time, as the Government or the Food Corporation /State Corporation/Purchase Officer may direct. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that in the beginning, the petitioners were directed to supply mill levy at the places other than Jaggaiahpet. Though, it is stated in the letter dated 13-05-2002, issued in letter Proc.No.4(1)/2001-2002 by the Assistant Manager, Food Corporation of India, informing certain diversions and tagging of petitioners to Jaggaiahpet delivery point, the petitioners were allotted space in the earlier godows i.e. C.W.C., Rayannapadu, C.W.C., Bhavanipuram, K.C. Depot, Tadepalli, and the respondents have accepted the levy rice at the aforesaid points, without any protest. Further, when bills were claimed by the petitioners for such supplies, they were paid, including the transportation charges. If the petitioners have supplied rice to the places other than Jaggaiahpet godown, in violation of the instructions issued in the letter dated 13-05-2002, the respondents ought not to have accepted the same. Having accepted the levy rice at the places where the petitioners were supplying prior to the issuance of proceedings, dated 13-05-2002, it is not open to the respondents to deny transportation charges incurred by the petitioners for transportation of levy rice from their mills to the delivery points. It is also to be noticed that when the petitioners have claimed the bills, the same were paid inclusive of transportation charges, but subsequently, the said amounts were recovered even without giving any opportunity to the petitioners. In the counter affidavit, it is merely stated that as the said amounts were inadvertently paid to the petitioners, recoveries are effected. If recoveries are to be made, the respondents ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioners. In any event, as the levy was accepted by the respondents at the godowns other than SWC, Jaggaiahpet, without any protest, it is not open for the respondents to deny the transportation charges for such supplies. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that deduction of transportation charges to the tune of Rs.1,07,913/-, Rs.1,07,913/- and Rs.71,630/- from the subsequent bills payable to the petitioners, is not only illegal and arbitrary, but is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Further, though the petitioners have claimed interest on the amounts deducted from their bills, but as much as the issuance of proceedings, dated 13-05-2002, is not in dispute, the petitioners are not entitled for any interest as per the provisions under the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed in part, and the respondents are directed to refund Rs.1,07,913/-, Rs.1,07,913/- and Rs.71,630/-, to the petitioners within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. However, such payment shall be without any interest. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J AUGUST 18, 2009. KTL