G. BASKARAN Vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the order dated 07.01.2015, passed by the first respondent and to direct the respondents to supply paddy to the petitioner's Rice Mill.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Hulling Agent of the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent Corporation') and in terms of the agreement entered into the second respondent would supply paddy to the petitioner, who is required to hull the same and deposit the processed and resultant rice in the godown of the respondent Corporation as per the quality and quantity specified. To ensure proper performance of the terms of the agreement, the petitioner has remitted a security deposit of Rs. 3,00,000/ - and bank guarantee for the value of Rs. 2,70,000/ -. During May 2013, the petitioner was supplied 485 tonnes of paddy for hulling and the petitioner is stated to have delivered the processed rice to the respondent Corporation on 07.06.2013. In terms of the procedure prescribed under the Hulling Manual, samples were drawn for analysis and based on the report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why the agreement should not be cancelled and why the petitioner should not be blacklisted from the list of approved contractors.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner elaborately referred to the factual situation and contended that the drawal of samples was clearly contrary to the procedure stipulated under the Manual of Processing of Paddy and in this regard referred to the clause 25 of the Manual of Procedure and submitted that on receipt of the samples from the godown within 24 hours from the date of deposit, the Quality Control Staff of the Regional Lab shall analyse the samples and issue quality certificate to the Miller, who on receipt of the quality certificate if aggrieved on the analysis results, can apply for re -analysis within 15 days from the date of receipt of the quality certificate. It is submitted that in the instant case samples were drawn beyond 24 hours and sent for analysis only on 28.05.2013, after delay of 12 days of deposit of resultant rice and this procedural infirmity goes to the root of the matter and on this ground, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Further, it is submitted that the quality certificate was forwarded to the petitioner along with show cause notice and the petitioner filed an appeal disputing the correctness of the certificate and the same was not considered and the samples were not sent for second quality analysis. Further, it is submitted that the samples were not drawn in the presence of the petitioner, which would vitiate the entire proceedings. It is further submitted that there was no proposal in the show cause notice for recovery of the alleged loss from the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order, ordering of recovery of the alleged loss from the petitioner, is illegal. Referring to the quality certificate dated 28.05.2015, it is submitted that in the said certificate, it has been recorded "incidents of old rice, low moisture and musty smell, hence it is PDS rice". Commenting upon the said certificate, it is submitted that the smell alleged to have been noticed during the analysis is on account of the belated analysis having been done after a period of 12 days and the respondents have supplied paddy classified under different grades and owing to different in grades is reflected in the resultant rice. Therefore, it is submitted that an improper test has been applied to reject the quality of the rice. On the above grounds, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the impugned order and to direct the respondents to continue to supply paddy for hulling.