IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 333 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 2, 2011 Haryana Agro-Industries Corporation Ltd. and another …Appellants Versus M/s Bhagat Rice Mills and others …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE MR. JU . JU . JU . JUSTICE M.M. STICE M.M. STICE M.M. STICE M.M. KUMAR KUMAR KUMAR KUMAR HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Addl. AG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR, J.J.J.J. 1. The Haryana Agro-Industries Corporation Ltd. along with its officer, has filed the instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenging orders dated 25.3.2010 and 17.11.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that delivery of paddy from storage point of the government, which is within 8 kilometers, to the place of milling is covered by clause 6 of the agreement of the relevant year 2004-05. According to the view of the learned Single Judge, the appellants are trying to charge from the miller- respondent No. 1 the alleged cost of transportation from Mandi to LPA No. 333 of 2011 (O&M) 2 their own storage point. The view of the learned Single Judge is evident from para 4, which reads as under: “4. In my view, the reading of the provisions of clause (4)(vii) and clause (6) are wrongly understood. While the service of the petitioner shall include transportation of milled rice to the storage point, clause (6) refers to delivery of paddy from the storage point of the Government which is within 8 kilometers to the place of milling. The petitioner's contention is that he has absorbed all the costs of transport from the storage point to the mill and what is now sought to be deducted is the alleged cost of transport by the respondents from mandi to their own storage point. There is no basis for calculation of such amount from the petitioner and there is no clause which entitles the respondents to effect such a recovery. The learned counsel refers to an unreported decision of this Court when a similar exercise was sought to be done by the respondents in M/s Aggarwal Rice & M/s Aggarwal Rice & M/s Aggarwal Rice & M/s Aggarwal Rice & General Mills Versus Food Corporation of India and others General Mills Versus Food Corporation of India and others General Mills Versus Food Corporation of India and others General Mills Versus Food Corporation of India and others in Civil Writ Petition No.17326 of 2002, dated 05 in Civil Writ Petition No.17326 of 2002, dated 05 in Civil Writ Petition No.17326 of 2002, dated 05 in Civil Writ Petition No.17326 of 2002, dated 05.12.2002 .12.2002 .12.2002 .12.2002, when this Court repelled such an attempt and directed that the miller was entitled to the payment of the milling charges without suffering any deduction for alleged transportation charges for earlier years. Even apart from making reliance to this, I am taking the decision on the ground that it is not the case of the respondents that they have suffered any transportation charges from the storage point to the petitioner's mill for a distance within LPA No. 333 of 2011 (O&M) 3 8 kilometers. Any cost incurred by the respondents to bring the paddy to their own storage point cannot be added as an item of expenditure which could be taxed on the petitioner by way of recovery. The demand for payment is unreasonable and it is quashed. The counsel for the petitioner states that the amount has already been deducted from the petitioner. Having regard to the fact that I have found that the demand is bad, the recovery is also bad and respondents 2 and 3 are liable to refund to the petitioner the amount deducted with interest at 9% from the date when the recovery was made till the date of actual payment. The payment shall be made within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. The writ petition is allowed. However, there shall be no directions as to costs.” 2. A perusal of the aforesaid para would show that the appellant is trying to recover from the miller transportation expenses to bring the paddy from mandi to their own storage point. Clause 6 of the agreement does not contemplate incurring of any expenditure by the miller on any such transportation. 3. When we confronted learned counsel for the appellants to point out any provision in Clause 4(vii) or Clause 6 or any other clause which may cover the transportation charges from Mandi to the storage point of the appellants, Mr. Pankaj Gupta has remained unable to point out any such clause. However, he made one submission for modification of the order dated 17.11.2010 dismissing the review petition filed by the appellants. According to LPA No. 333 of 2011 (O&M) 4 the learned counsel some disparaging remarks have been made by the learned Single Judge about his conduct. He placed on record his sincere regrets and apology. Accordingly, he has prayed for expunging of those remarks. 4. Having heard learned counsel we are of the considered view that the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge with regard to recovery of transportation expenses of paddy from Mandi to the storage point of the appellants cannot be supported by any clause of the agreement. Learned Single Judge has rightly concluded on the basis of clause 4(vii) and clause 6 of the agreement that there was no such possibility of including such transportation charges in the expenses to be borne by the respondent Miller. The appeal is wholly without merit and does not warrant admission. However, keeping in view the sincere regrets offered by Mr. Pankaj Gupta, we expunge the adverse remarks in para 2 of the order dated 17.11.2010 made by the learned Single Judge against him. With the aforesaid observation, the instant appeal is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH) August August August August 2, , , , 2011 2011 2011 2011 JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE PKapoor