S. SARAVANAKUMAR Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 30.04.2014 and after setting aside the said order, seeks for a consequential direction directing the respondents to supply paddy to his rice mill.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was running a rice mill in the name and style of Shanmuga Rice Mill at Neelipalayam, Puliyampatti Via., Avinashi Taluk, Tiruppur District and he is also a hulling agent for the respondents corporation. It is the further case of the petitioner that he is authorised by the respondents to hull paddy. While so, on 25.05.2013, the Inspector of Police, CSCID, Tiruppur inspected the house of the petitioner, which is situate within the rice mill premises, and seized 65 bags of rice each weighing 50 kg by alleging that the rice meant for public distribution system were clandestinely hoarded by the petitioner. Consequently, the respondents stopped supplying paddy to the petitioner and he could not continue the hulling business. Thereafter, on 31.05.2013, the second respondent issued a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the loss caused to the corporation be not recovered, why the hulling licence issued to him be not cancelled and as to why the name of the petitioner rice mill be not included in the blacklist maintained by the respondents corporation. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 10.06.2013 denying the charges. Inspite of such explanation, the second respondent, in his proceedings dated 22.07.2013, cancelled the hulling licence issued to the petitioner. As against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 02.09.2013 to the first respondent. According to the petitioner, the appeal filed by the petitioner was not considered for a considerable length of time and therefore he filed WP No. 27307 of 2013 before this Court seeking for a Mandamus to dispose of the statutory appeal pending on the file of the first respondent. This Court, by order dated 11.11.2013, directed the first respondent to dispose of the appeal within a period of four weeks. Thereafter, the first respondent taken up the appeal filed by the petitioner and passed an order dated 06.03.2014 allowing the appeal. On the basis of the order dated 06.03.2014, the petitioner sent a representation dated 28.04.2014 to the second respondent requesting to supply paddy to his mill so as to enable him to commence the hulling business. While the petitioner was anticipating to commence the hulling business, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 30.04.2014 stating that the first respondent has instructed to say that claim of the petitioner for renewal of licence will be considered after the conclusion of the criminal proceedings and therefore, the petitioner's request cannot be entertained.

(3.) ON the contrary, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, relying on the counter affidavit, would contend that the second respondent relied on the Circular issued by the first respondent and rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for renewal of the hulling licence. Further, when a criminal case is pending against the petitioner, the question of renewing the hulling licence in favour of the petitioner does not arise. In any event, the claim of the petitioner for renewing the hulling licence cannot be considered by the respondents at this stage and he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.