Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that respondent No.1 had issued Operational Guidelines dated 13.12.2022 on quality control for FRK and fortified rice and the rice millers should have an automatic blending machine having the standard ratio prescribed by Bureau of Indian Standards (for short "BIS") to ensure accurate blending at a ratio of 1:100.

5.1 It is further averred that the Quality Control Cell (QCC) of the Department of Public Distribution, Government of India, conducts both periodic and surprise inspections at respondent No.2 Depots to monitor the quality of food grains during procurement, storage, and distribution managed by respondent No.2 and other agencies. FCI accepts food grain stocks based on the uniform specifications setup by the Government of India, as outlined in letter No. FCI HQ- QC012(11)/2/2023-QC, with reference to the details of inspection, sampling, and analysis procedures for the procurement of paddy and the acceptance/purchase of rice stocks. In this context, all 14 stocks checked by Ministry are accepted on AGA (Automatic Grain Analyser) for quality parameters at the time of receipt. However, 13 stocks have been manually analysed in respect of FRK as per SOP of FCIHQQC029/1/2024 QC dated 15.02.2024, and 1 stock has been analyzed by AGA machine in respect of FRK.

6.3 He further submitted that QCC team had drawn samples, without issuing notice and opportunity to the petitioners and without conducting on-the-spot analysis and even without complaint from any individual. The respondents have not followed the mandatory procedure as completed under SOP. On 05.08.2024, the petitioners requested the respondent No.2 to re-examine the samples. However, the same was not considered the same.

6.4 He also submitted that the petitioners urged that the procedure for fortified rice samples was not followed correctly, as the initial analysis was not conducted within the prescribed time. The checking process should have been completed within 24 hours and any rejection should have been conveyed within one week of dumping, especially when the respondents have conducted surprise checks in the absence of any complaints or grievances is not permissible under law.

6.5 He also submitted that on 26.09.2023, respondent No.2 has issued guidelines for sampling and analysis procedure to be followed in procurement of paddy and acceptance/purchase of rice stocks during Kharif marketing season 2023-24. As per clause 9, samples will be drawn jointly with State Government representative by the technical assistant for the purpose of analysis to determine acceptability of the consignment as per the uniform specification/SOP. However, Clause Nos.12 and 17 were not followed and Clause No.23 states mandatory checks and quality control teams should conduct surprise checks with reports critically examined. He further submits that ISO regulations for cereals and pulses sampling were adopted by the Bureau of Indian Standards. As per the SOP dated 15.03.2023, there is a provision of appeal mechanism under Clauses 3 and 5. He further submitted that the respondents have not communicated the report to the petitioners and also not provided an appeal mechanism exists at the time of acceptance of stock. 6.6 He further submitted that on 12.01.2024, respondent No.2 introduced enhanced quality control measures using an AI-based automated grain analyzer. Clause 6 states that if the AI analyzer malfunctions, samples can be tested at a nearby center and manual analysis is permitted with explicit GM (Region) approval to prevent work disruptions.

10.1 He further submitted that the respondents used both AI machines and manual methods for testing the stock, but the procedure was unclear and no reasons were provided with regard to discrepancy. It is stated in the counter-affidavit of respondent No.2 that 13 stocks were manually analyzed and 1 stock was tested by using AI machines and they failed to explain the rationale behind using manual sampling in some cases. In essence, the petitioners argue that the inspection process, surprise checks, and sampling procedures were flawed, lacked transparency, and violated the SOP. 10.2 In reply submissions again he relied upon the following judgments: