CHANDRASEKBAR Vs. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was agpointed as an agent to procure producer's levy from the ryots and deliver the same to the Food Corporation of India. The petitioner supplied on 10-5-1976, 895 bags of Telia Hamsa L.S. variety to the Food Corporation of India (hereafter referred to as the 'F.C.I.'). Again on 11-5-1976, he delivered 533 bags of Telia Hamsa M.S. variety to the F.C.I. Both the varieties i.e., Telia Hamsa L.S. and M.S., were analysed in the District Laboratory. The reports of the Analyst dated 15-5-1976 clearly show that both come under Telia Hamsa L.B. Grade III. Aggrieved with the report of the Analyst, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 11-6-1976 for reanalysis. 54 days after entertainment of the appeal, the District Manager intimated the petitioner through letter E/QS/20/75-76 dated 5-8-76 that the re-analysis will be conducted from 10 A.M., on 10-8-1976 in their District Laboratory, Sanatnagar and the petitioner is, therefore, requested to appear in person or depute a representative on his behalf with a letter of authorisation.

(2.) On 10-8-1976 the petitioner attended the joint analysis conducted at District Laboratory, Sanatnagar and the District Manager issued a certificate to that effect. On 2-6-1977 the Assistant Manager (A.C.) Lab. issued a letter to the petitioner informing him that the Senior Regional Manager informed him under letter No E7/B. I/75-AC dated 7-5-1977 that the State Government has not agreed for re-analysis after the lapse of 90 days. The petitioner assails this order and also the Analyst's report and rebate statement issued on 15-5-1976 by the District Manager, Sanatnagar.

(3.) Sri P. A. Chowdary, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the first analysis report dated 15-5-1976 which treated that both the consignments L.S. and M S. come under L.B. Grade III is not in accordance with the principles of natural justice as it was not conducted in the presence of the petitioner and no notice was issued requiring the petitioner to be present at the time of the analysis and hence that report should be regarded as null and void. He also contends that though the second analysis was conducted in his presence on 10-8-1976, the result of the analysis was not informed to him and the failure on the part of the respondents to announce the result of the second analysis would amount to failure on the part of the respondents to consider the appeal preferred by him. He, therefore, contends that the first analysis report as well as the proceedings dated 2-6-1977 that re-analysis cannot be conducted after 90 days should be declared as void and the respondents should be directed to ignore them.