M/S UNITED FOODS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of communication dtd. 9/12/2025 whereby Director General, Food Civil Supplies & Consumers Affairs Department, Haryana has decided to shift paddy from its premises to another rice mill. The petitioner is further seeking setting aside of office memo dtd. 11/12/2025, 15/12/2025, 16/12/2026 & 29/1/2026 whereby directions have been issued to shift stock of paddy from its premises to another mill.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner INTER ALIA contends that petitioner was allocated 3772 MT paddy for milling during KMS 2025-26. It partially processed the paddy and converted into rice. The respondent made surprise visit to its premises and found shortage of 1005 MT paddy. The respondent lodged FIR against a partner of the petitioner-firm. He filed anticipatory bail before this Court which came to be dismissed vide order dtd. 4/12/2025. The petitioner filed civil suit seeking mandatory injunction which came to be returned on the application of respondent on the ground that there is arbitration clause and plaintiff has remedy to invoke provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent by impugned orders is asking to deliver left over paddy to another mill. The petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.2.47 crore towards alleged shortfall of paddy. The petitioner has 5 years' excellent track record. The respondent has passed impugned orders without granting opportunity of hearing. It has no remedy by way of appeal before higher authorities against decision of Director and other authorities of Food Civil Supplies.

(3.) Learned State counsel submits that as per Clause 13 of the agreement dtd. 10/10/2025, the respondent is entitled to initiate civil/criminal action in case of theft or misappropriation of the stock. The miller may also be blacklisted. There is breach of trust, thus, respondent has every right to take back its stock. The petitioner has no vested or fundamental right to process paddy supplied by respondent. There is clear violation of terms and conditions of the agreement read with KMS 2025-26, thus, action of respondent is justified.