Madras High Court
Devi Rice Mills vs The District Revenue Officer on 22 October, 2010
Author: M.Jaichandren
Bench: M.Jaichandren
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22/10/2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition(MD) No.8478 of 2009 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2009 Devi Rice Mills, rep.by its Proprietrix, 6/307 A, Mettuthottiankulam, Palayampatti Post, Aruppukkottai Taluk, Virudhunagar. .. Petitioner Vs 1.The District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar. 2.The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd, rep.by its Regional Manager, Virudhunagar Region, Virudhunagar. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order in Na.Ka.CS 2-25334-08, dated 22.07.2009, of the first respondent and quash the same insofar as it imposes compensation of Rs.6,72,780/- with further direction to prosecute the petitioner. !For petitioner ... Mr.S.Venkataraman ^For R.1 ... Mr.K.M.Vijayakumar Spl.Govt.Pleader For R.2 ... Mr.R.Janakiramalu Spl.Govt.Pleader :ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order, in Na.Ka.CS 2-25334-08, dated 22.07.2009, of the first respondent and to quash the same insofar as it imposes compensation of Rs.6,72,780/-, with a further direction to prosecute the petitioner.
2.It has been stated that the petitioner is a hulling agent. By the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 22.07.2009, the petitioner had been 'black listed'. The agreement between the petitioner and the respondent is to be in force for a period of five years, from the year, 2006. While so, on 17.06.2008, there was an inspection of the petitioner rice mill, by the Vigilance Cell of the respondent Corporation. No notice had been issued to the petitioner, either during the inspection, or on a subsequent date, with regard to the shortage of stock, or regarding the supply of rice. Thereafter, the second respondent had issued a show cause notice to the rice mills asking them as to why they should not be black listed for the alleged irregularity in the supply of resultant rice. The petitioner had sent its explanation, denying the allegations contained in the notice. However, the second respondent had rejected the explanation of the petitioner and black listed the petitioner mill. Thereafter, the respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 22.07.2009, holding as follows:-
"a) that the rice in question be confiscated.
b) that the petitioner should pay a compensation of Rs.6,32,780/- for 22426 Kgs of rice at Rs.30/- per kg and
c) that the Food Cell, Virudhunagar, should take steps to prosecute the petitioner's Proprietrix and its Manager".
3.The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first respondent does not have any authority or jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, dated 22.07.2009. An appeal, under Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act,1955, could be filed only in respect of an order of confiscation made under Section 6-A of the said Act. There is no appeal provided under the Act, with regard to the act of the respondent imposing a fine on the petitioner and the recommendation to prosecute the petitioner by the Food Cell, Virudhunagar. It had also been submitted that the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 22.07.2009, had been passed, without any notice being issued to the petitioner and without giving an opportunity of hearing to it. Thus, the said order had been issued contrary to the principles of natural justice.
4.It had also been submitted that the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 22.07.2009, is without jurisdiction and that it is in violation of the statutory procedures laid down, under Section 6-B of the Essential Commodities Act,1955. The enquiry said to have been held against the petitioner, based on which, the impugned order had been issued, is illegal and void. The documents relied on by the first respondent, while passing the impugned order, dated 22.07.2009, had not been given to the petitioner, during the enquiry. As such, the order of the first respondent, dated 22.07.2009, is arbitrary, illegal and void. It had also been stated that the grounds of confiscation had not been given. Even in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it has not been stated that a proper show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner before the enquiry had been conducted, based on which the impugned order, dated 22.07.2009, had been passed by the first respondent.
5.Per contra, in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, the averments and allegations made on behalf of the petitioner had been denied. It has been stated that the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation enables the respondent Corporation to terminate the contract in the event of the petitioner mill acting in a manner contrary to the clauses contained in the agreement and if it violates any of the relevant provisions of law. It had been submitted that, on 17.06.2008, the Vigilance Cell of the respondent Corporation, while inspecting, had found rice of Food Corporation of India origin in the samples drawn from the stocks deposited into the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited godown. Based on the rice analysis report, the petitioner had been black listed. Further, it had also been submitted that the District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar, had issued final orders in his impugned proceedings, dated 22.07.2009, as per the powers vested in him and also as per Sections 6-A and 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act,1955. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed the Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.(MD).No.8467 of 2009, which had been withdrawn by the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the District Court, Srivilliputhur, in C.A.No.85 of 2009. Suppressing the said fact, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition before this Court praying for the same relief.
6.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity during the enquiry and the impugned order had been passed by the first respondent, on 22.07.2009, only on considering the explanation submitted on behalf of the petitioner, without exhausting the alternative appellate remedy provided under Section 6-C of the Act, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking its Writ jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed, as it is devoid of merits.
7.In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents and in view of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to grant the reliefs, as prayed for in the present Writ Petition. Nothing has been shown on behalf of the petitioner to substantiate its claim that no notice had been issued before the enquiry had been conducted, based on which, the impugned order had been passed by the first respondent. It is also noted that the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the District Court, Srivilliputhur, in C.A.No.85 of 2009, challenging the order of confiscation of the rice in question. It is also an admitted fact that there is an arbitration clause available in the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation and it is for the petitioner to invoke the arbitration clause, if he so desires. As such, the present Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
ssm To The Regional Manager, The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd, Virudhunagar Region, Virudhunagar