Calcutta High Court
M/S Raiganj Flour Mill Pvt Ltd vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 14 August, 2013
Author: I.P.Mukerji
Bench: I. P. Mukerji
ORDER SHEET
WP No. 1198 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
M/S RAIGANJ FLOUR MILL PVT LTD.
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI
Date : 14th August, 2013.
Appearance:
Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Advocate
Mr. D.Saha Roy, Advocate
Mr. P.Mukherjee, Advocate
Mr. R.Dutta, Advocate
Mr. P.Banerjee, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. Jayak Gupta, Advocate
for the respondents
The Court: In spite of directions, the State has not filed their affidavit in opposition. Mr. Gupta, learned Advocate appearing for the State, earnestly requested the Court to give the State some more time to file their affidavit in opposition. But it appears that this writ came up for admission before Indira Banerjee, J., on 4th October, 2010. By an order passed on the same day, this Court restrained the State respondents from with-holding supply of BPL wheat to the flour mills of the petitioners. An appeal was preferred from that order when a Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 19th May, 2011 vacated the interim order but directed expeditious disposal of the writ application. There was thus more reason for the State to have filed 2 their affidavit in opposition within time. This writ came up for final consideration before this Court on 7th August, 2013 when it was adjourned till this date. Even in this period, the affidavit has not been made ready.
The fact is that the documents which are necessary for disposal of the writ application are annexed to the writ petition, for example, the show cause notice and the inspection report. At any rate, an affidavit in opposition cannot improve the case of the State as borne out by these documents.
The writ petitioner has a mechanised flour mill at Raigunj, Uttar Dinajpur. As part of its obligation, the State distributes 'atta' through the Public Distribution System. This 'atta' is also distributed to families falling below poverty line (BPL). The State does not have all the facilities for implementation of the scheme. The task of grinding wheat into 'atta', adding some new ingredients to them and packaging them, into 750 g packets to BPL persons, was entrusted by the State to the petitioner for a particular area. This is evidenced by a Memo dated 21st December, 2008 followed by an agreement of 7th March, 2008.
On 19th August, 2010, the District Controller (F&S) Uttar Dinajpur issued a notice to the writ petitioner alleging that they had been supplying "hand packed atta" when they were required to supply machine packed atta produced through an automatic or semi- automatic packaging system.
This was replied to by the writ petitioner on 30th August, 2010. However, supply of wheat to the writ petitioners' flour mill was stopped by the State from September, 2010.
3
Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, submitted that the show cause notice has not been adjudicated upon. He showed me an inspection report dated 9th April, 2010 of the Directorate of Inspection and Quality Control, Department of Food and Supplies, Government of West Bengal. A part of the report referred to the packaging section of the writ petitioner. It clearly stated that there were eight fully automatic and four semi-automatic packaging/stiching machines which were all in running condition. When the machines were running, they produced eighteen to twenty numbers of such packets per minute. Each packet weighed between the 748 and 753 grams. In addition, there were two vitamin machines. The report added the flour mill was capable to grinding wheat @ 9 tonnes per hour. Furthermore, new modern machines were being installed.
It is hard to believe that without formal cancellation of this report, the above show cause notice was issued alleging that hand packed atta was being supplied by the writ petitioner.
Mr. Gupta for the State contended that since supply of wheat to the factory had been stopped from September, 2010 on the above grounds, it should not be resumed by orders of Court. Furthermore, he sought an opportunity to produce all departmental files and other records to substantiate the case of the State.
In my opinion, this would serve no purpose and further delay the matter.
Since the show cause notice has not been adjudicated upon, it is imperative that this show cause notice is adjudicated upon as quickly as possible within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order, by giving hearing to the petitioner and 4 by way of a reasoned order. The said report of the Directorate of Inspection and Quality Control, Department of Food and Supplies, has to be relied upon and dealt with at the time of adjudication, in addition to all other documents. I make it clear that if the show cause notice is adjudicated in favour of the writ petitioner or cannot be adjudicated upon within four weeks from date, supply of wheat to the writ petitioner's flour mill in terms of the agreement will be resumed forthwith by the State respondents within one week thereof.
Since four weeks have been granted to adjudicate the show cause notice and from 2010 there is stoppage of supply, at the present moment, I am not ordering resumption of supply, unless the State fails to adjudicate the show cause notice within four weeks as aforesaid.
This writ application is disposed of by the above order. All parties concerned to act on a signed photocopy of this order upon the usual undertakings.
(I.P.MUKERJI, J.) G/