GILL RICE MILLS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is to de-seal the rice sheller of the petitioner which had been sealed by the Punjab Agro Food Grains Corporation (for short, 'the PAFC'), the 5th respondent herein, which according to the petitioner, is without any justification. The petition further contains a direction to the respondents 3 to 6, namely, the PUNGRAIN and the officials connected with the PAFC to adhere to a decision taken in the meeting alleged to have been held on 22.10.2009 and not to make any miller accountable for the nonmilling of rice against the paddy variety of PAU-201. The petitioner would claim that the respondents alone are responsible for the damage/destruction of the paddy in the rice sheller which had been illegally sealed by the 4th respondent.

(2.) It is an admitted premise that an agreement had been entered into by the petitioner with the Government agencies for the year 2009-10 for getting the paddy milled into rice as per clause 10 of the Punjab Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1983. It is stated by the petitioner that 15950 bags of paddy had been received by the petitioner from respondent No.4-PAFC in terms of receipt dated 05.11.2009 (Annexure P1) and 1400 MT paddy from respondent No.3-PUNGRAIN in terms of letter dated 11.11.2009 (Annexure P- 2). This was said to include also the paddy variety of PAU-201. There had been excessive damage and dis-colouration percentage in the rice and it was an experience with the petitioner as well as several other millers that they could not bring the milled rice within the prescribed limits of quality on account of inherent defect in the variety. In a turmoil that erupted and to quell the face off between the State agencies and the rice millers, all the District Managers of the PUNGRAIN and PAFC had been called to a meeting where it was resolved in the presence of the millers on 22.10.2009 that the damage contents in the rice produced after milling would vary from 7% to 8% and the millers were entitled to endorse on the receipt that they were not bound to mill the variety as per the given specifications of the Government of India or till when the Government took a decision regarding the specifications of rice produced before this variety of paddy. A joint report had been made by all the State agencies, namely, MARKFED, PUNSUP, Punjab Agro, Punjab Warehouse and the District & Food Supplies Controller, where it was agreed that the rice millers would unload the PAU-201 variety in their stores and they will check the quality and quantity of the same but they were not required to mill the same. It was decided that the Government would resolve the issue and if the paddy was not milled, no action could be taken and necessary instructions would be got from the State Government.

(3.) The petitioner claimed that it had milled about 540 bags of rice against the paddy allotted by the PUNGRAIN and also milled about 1080 bags of rice against the paddy allotted by the PAFC. The paddy that could not be milled was offered by the petitioner to be delivered at FCI after putting an effort to make them fit for human consumption, but no space had been provided by the FCI for storing the same. The petitioner would contend that he had spent more than 25 lacs of rupees for converting the rice as fit for human consumption, but still without allowing the petitioner to deliver them at the FCI, about 68 consignments of the PAFC and 11 consignments of PUNGRAIN had been sealed by the 5th respondent on 01.02.2011 without any authority. The petitioner would claim that the sealing had been done by the District Manger of the Corporation out of personal enmity and bias. A written representation had been given on 08.02.2011 (Annexure P-12) to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Barnala, for registration of complaint against the Inspector, Punjab Agro, for forcibly taking up the rice lying in the premises of the mill without giving any receipt and threatening him for false complaints. After sealing the premises, the respondent was still issuing notices for the alleged failure of the petitioner to deliver the paddy after milling. The petitioner has characterized these notices as untenable, for, the respondents, who were guilty of sealing the premises could not have expected the petitioner to mill the paddy and deliver the same. Any damage that had arisen by the long storage and the inability of the petitioner to return after milling were on account of the respondents' conduct themselves and they could not make the petitioner liable for any damage for non-milling of the paddy.