1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3629 of 2014 Deoghar Mill (Deoghar Rice Mill) Jhausagarhi, Deoghar through its Managing Partner & Anr... Petitioners Union of India & Ors....... Respondents W.P.(C) No. 3786 of 2014 Madan Rice & Oil Mills through its partner, Jhausagarhi Deoghar...... Petitioner The State of Jharkhand & Ors....... Respondents W.P.(C) No. 3787 of 2014 Shree Bhagwati Rice & Flour Mill through its proprietor, Deoghar...... Petitioner W.P.(C) No. 3788 of 2014 Shri Bajrang Rice & Flour Mills through its partner, Deoghar...... Petitioner W.P.(C) No. 3795 of 2014 Baidyanath Real Food Pvt. Ltd. through its Director, Deoghar...... Petitioner W.P.(C) No. 3796 of 2014 Shree Niranjan Rice Mill through its proprietor, Jhausagari, Deoghar...... Petitioner
2 W.P.(C) No. 3800 of 2014 K.S. Industries through its proprietor, Deoghar... Petitioner W.P.(C) No. 3805 of 2014 P.D.R.D. Rice Mills (P) Ltd. through one of its Director, Deoghar...... Petitioner W.P.(C) No. 3813 of 2014 Shiva Rice Mill through its Manager, Deoghar... Petitioner W.P.(C) No. 3814 of 2014 Bajla Food Products Pvt. Ltd. through one of its Directors, Deoghar...... Petitioner W.P.(C) No. 3817 of 2014 Choudhary Rice Mill through its proprietor, Deoghar...... Petitioner W.P.(C) No. 3838 of 2014 Deoghar Food Pvt. Ltd, through one of its Directors, Deoghar...... Petitioner W.P.(C) No. 3984 of 2014 Shree Ganesh Udyog through its proprietor, Dumka.. Petitioner
3 W.P.(C) No. 3987 of 2014 Annapurna Rice Mill through its proprietor, Dumka.. Petitioner W.P.(C) No. 3988 of 2014 Shree Ganesh Acchat Udyog through its proprietor, Dumka...... Petitioner W.P.(C) No. 3992 of 2014 Adhunik Akshat Udyog Pvt. Ltd. through its Director, Dumka...... Petitioner CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Bibhash Sinha, Gautam Kumar, Advocates For the Respondent State : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G. Mr. K.M. Verma, G.P. I, A.K. Dey, Sahdab bin haque, J.C. to G.PI For the Respondents : Mr. M.K Roy, Satish Bakshi, Nipun Bakshi, Advocates 09/12.09.2014 In all the writ petitions a common issue is involved and therefore, the consent of the parties, all the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, W.P.(C) No. 3629 of 2014 [Deoghar Mill (Deoghar Rice Mill) Jhausagarhi, Deoghar through its Managing Patner & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.] is being referred to in the present order. 2. Challenging orders dated 20.06.2014, 27.06.2014, 02.07.2014 and 12.07.2014 it is submitted that the respondent Deputy
4 Commissioner was directed to take steps to recover a sum @ Rs. 1298.05 per quintal from the Rice Mill Owners and therefore, the petitioners, apprehending coercive action against them have approached this Court. 3. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned letters dated 20.06.2014, 27.06.2014, 02.07.2014 and 12.07.2014 are out jurisdiction inasmuch as, there is no privy of contract between the petitioners and the authority, which has issued the impugned letters. No agreement was signed between the petitioners and the Government of Jharkhand. It is further submitted that out adjudicating the delay and default on the part of the parties to the contract, the impugned letters could not have been issued by the respondent authority directing the Deputy Commissioner to realise an amount @ Rs. 1298.05 per quintal from the Rice Mill Owners. It is submitted that the amount so arrived at by the respondent authority includes actual cost that is, Rs. 1250.00 per quintal of paddy and market fee, handling charges, transportation and other administrative charges which, the respondent authority cannot decide on their own. Referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.G. Engineer (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2011) 5 SCC 758 and State of Karnataka Vs. Shree Rameshwara Rice Mills, Thirthahalli, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 160, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the State being a party to the dispute is not competent to decide the amount of damages. It is further submitted that it is a matter of record that though the paddy was milled by the Rice Mill Owners in time however, due to difficulties faced by the Food Corporation of India (FCI), the rice could not be transported in the godowns of the Food Corporation of India (FCI). It is
5 submitted that in course of delay the petitioners have also suffered huge losses on account of deterioration of paddy/rice. It is further submitted that the impugned orders have been passed out affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and since coercive action for realising the amount from the petitioners is contemplated, the petitioners were constrained to approach this Court. Due to impugned orders since adverse civil consequence would follow, the petitioners were entitled for a fair opportunity to put their case before an adverse order is passed against the petitioners. 4. Per contra, Mr. Jai Prakash, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Jharkhand submitted that in terms of the contract the respondent State of Jharkhand is entitled to realise 150% of the total price whereas, taking a lenient view in the matter only 50% of the handling, transportation, administrative charges etc. have been levied on the Rice Mill Owners. It is submitted that though the initial scheme was to operate till 31.10.2013 however, the Central Government subsequently extended the time till 31.12.2013 and therefore, there cannot be any doubt that the time is the essence of the contract and the Rice Mill Owners were required to mill the paddy and transport the rice to the godowns of Food Corporation of India, in time. 5. It appears that on 13.08.2014, when the matter was listed for hearing, the Additional Advocate General was directed to seek instruction whether the rice/paddy lying the Rice Mill Owners can be sold by the petitioners. 6. A counter affidavit dated 19.08.2014 has been filed taking a stand that if the Rice Mill Owners make payment of the price along the other administrative charges i.e., a sum @ Rs. 1298.05 per quintal paddy, the respective Rice Mill
6 Owners will certainly become owner of the said rice/paddy and they can deal the rice/paddy as owner thereof. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 8. From the facts narrated in the writ petition and the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I am of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice and equities would be balanced, if the petitioners are directed to pay a sum @ Rs. 1250 per quintal of the paddy for the paddy/rice still lying them and the petitioners should be given liberty to sale/dispose of the rice/paddy lying them. This order is being made on account of unanimity on the issue that due to delay the rice/paddy is getting deteriorated and requires early disposal and the State should atleast get the minimum procurement price at this stage. 9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, since the petitioners are earning their livelihood from the income by milling the paddy, it would be onerous on the petitioners, if the petitioners are directed to deposit the entire sum at one time. The petitioners can deposit the price for paddy only after selling the same. 10. The learned Senior Counsel for the State of Jharkhand has submitted that the second paddy season would start from 01.11.2014. 11. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the petitioners may be permitted to deposit 25% of the total amount in a period of four weeks from 15.09.2014 and further 25% in next four weeks and thereafter, the petitioners are directed to make payment of the rest 50% of the amount on or before 31.12.2014.
7 12. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in fact, the petitioners have already supplied some quantity of rice to the PACCS for which the payment has been held by the respondent authority. 13. It is made clear that the payment due to the petitioners would be adjusted by the respondents against price of rice supplied by them, keeping in view the document dated 12.07.2014 which is a chart produced by the department itself. 14. In so far as, the dispute respect to payment on account of market fee, handling charges, transportation and other administrative charges etc. and the damages allegedly suffered by the petitioners are concerned, the consent of the parties, the matter is referred to the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA), Ranchi. The petitioners are permitted to approach the Member Secretary, JHALSA in a period of two weeks who, in turn, refer the matter to the Lok Adalat. The proceeding would be conducted at JHALSA, Ranchi on payment of usual charges borne by both the parties. The parties would take necessary steps for resolution of dispute as early as possible, preferably in 3 months from the date the petitioners approach the JHALSA, Ranchi. It is further clarified that, in the event the matter is not resolved and the Rice Mill Owner or the State of Jharkhand remains dissatisfied, the parties would be at liberty to approach appropriate forum seeking redressal of their grievance. 15. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Manish (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)