Karnataka High Court
Maize Products vs Food Corporation Of India on 10 December, 2018
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION No.42141/2011(GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
MAIZE PRODUCTS
(A DIVISION OF SAYYAJI INDUSTRIES LTD)
KATHWADA, AHMEDABAD
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER
OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
MR. SUDHINDRA
S/O SRI. B.N. PRAHALADA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O. NO.125, BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE-560004.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SATISH M. DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
BARAKAMBA, NEW DELHI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR
2. THE ZONAL MANAGER
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA,
NO.3, HADDOWS ROAD,
CHENNAI-600006.
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA,
2
NO.10, EAST END MAIN ROAD,
JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560011.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI N. K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE)
....
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.7.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-J,
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 22.07.2011 made in No.Sales/12(5)/2008-09/tender sale-Maize, vide Annexure-J passed by the third respondent and for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay loading charges of `7,18,195/0 along with interest at 18% per annum.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance of the notification issued by the respondent-Food 3 Corporation of India inviting tenders for disposing/ lifting of maize stocks situated at various godowns. The petitioner participated in the tender proceedings. Ultimately, the offer of the petitioner came to be accepted by the respondent Corporation. Petitioner fully performed its part of the obligations as per the tender condition. Even though the petitioner was not liable to pay the loading charges, petitioner paid the same i.e., an amount of `7,18,195/- at the instance of the respondent Corporation on the condition that the Corporation would refund the loading charges. Even though the respondent Corporation accepted the claim of the petitioner and even though it has stated that it was going to settle the matter, so far has not taken any action.
3. Therefore, petitioner was constrained to approach this Court in W.P.No.24997/2010. This Court, after hearing both the parties, by order dated 06.06.2011, 4 disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representations dated 19.04.2007, 16.02.2008 and 25.05.2009, as early as possible, but not later than the outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of the said order. In pursuance to the said order passed by this Court, the third respondent passed the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the Karnataka State Ware Housing Corporation has not paid any loading charges to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner's representation was rejected on merits. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
4. The respondents filed the statement of objections and specifically contended at paragraph-7 that, the clarification of the Government of India was communicated by the Head Office, Food Corporation of India, New Delhi, vide its communication dated 10.01.2012 directing the Food Corporation of India, 5 Regional Office, Bengaluru, to make payment after ascertaining the reasonableness of the rate to the petitioner as per contractual obligation under clause-K of the tender form and payment so made may be recovered from the State Government of Karnataka. A similar direction was also communicated by the Zonal Office (South), Food Corporation of India, Chennai, vide its communication dated 12.01.2012.
5. It is further contended that the Maize stocks allotted to the petitioner were procured and stored under the control of State Government Procurment Agency viz., Karnataka State Ware Housing Corporation. Hence, the reasonableness of rate for payment of loading charges could be made only on the basis of the handling charges prevalent at the relevant point of time. Accordingly, on 18.01.2012, respondents paid `1,81,272/- to the petitioner, through RTGS payment as per the bank account details provided by 6 the petitioner, as per Annexure-R4 to the statement of objections. In view of the above, the prayer sought in the present writ petition does not survive for consideration and therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
7. Sri Satish M. Doddamani, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that in view of the categorical statement made by the respondents in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the statement of objections that payment of `1,81,272/- is made on 18.01.2012 through RTGS as per the bank account details provided by the petitioner, the writ petition may be disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy, if respondents are still due any amount to the petitioner, in accordance with law. The fair submission is placed on record. 7
8. In view of the above, writ petition is disposed of with liberty as prayed for.
Sd/-
JUDGE kcm