KRISHNA MODERN RICE MILL Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR PUDUCHERRY AGRO PRODUCTS FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition had been filed by the petitioner, in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the proceedings bearing No. 10-1/SBR/PAPSCO/PDY/GEN/RICE & WHEAT/2018-19 dated 22.09.2018 on the file of the respondent, Managing Director, Puducherry Agro Products Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and quash the same.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is stated that the writ petitioner M/s. Sri Krishna Modern Rice Mill is a reputed supplier of RICE in Puducherry. They have been in business for the past 28 years. They have been supplying RICE and other products to Government Agencies and more particularly to the respondent from the year 2003-04. They have done business for over 150 crores. It has been stated that since there were dues payable, the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition and this Court had directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.4.53 crores. It is stated that the impugned order questioned in this Writ Petition had been passed owing to the respondent being aggrieved with the step taken by the petitioner in seeking legal remedy for the dues payable. It is also stated that even on an earlier occasion, the Civil Supply Corporation had seized the RICE of the petitioner, but that act was found to be illegal by the Principal Sessions Court, Puducherry in Crl.A.No. 6 of 2013 and a direction was issued to return the RICE seized. The petitioner had also filed a further application to direct the respondent to make good the loss due to that seizure. It is further stated in the affidavit that in May 2018, the RICE products of the petitioner were checked and out of 323 tonnes, 93 tonnes were found to suffer from quality. The petitioner claims that the intention of the respondent was mala fide. On 02.08.2018, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice stating that out of 9 trucks carrying 132.500 mt of RICE, one truck bearing registration No. TN-19-T-0519 contained rice which did not confirm to the specifications as set out in the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006. The petitioner claims that thereafter the respondent had issued notice to blacklist the petitioner. Aggrieved by such steps taken by the respondent, the present Writ Petition had been filed.

(3.) In the counter filed by the respondent, it had been stated that the petitioner had transported RICE through 7 trucks and when the RICE contained in one of the truck were examined it was found that the quality was substandard and living insects and worms were found. The RICE did not confirm to the norms stipulated under the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 and the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations 2011 and unfit for human consumption. It is under these circumstances that notice dated 27.07.2018 had been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to explain why the security deposit amount need not be forfeited and the petitioner need not be blacklisted. It had also been stated that the petitioner had not questioned the laboratory reports and the action taken in the notices dated 27.07.2018, 02.08.2018 and 06.08.2018. It was stated that the impugned order dated 22.09.2018 was only a consequential order pursuant to the laboratory reports. The respondent justified the impugned order and further stated that the Writ Petition should be dismissed.