M/s. Sri Anjaneya Traders v. 1. The State of Telangana

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAYI DEVI WRIT PETITION NO.I916 OF 2025 ORDER In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in contemplating to shift the paddy allotted to the petitioner for Kharif season 2o24-25 which was kept partly in the petitioner's mill and partly in nearby godowns, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents not to shift the paddy allotted to the petitioner for the aforesaid season and to pass such other order or orders.

2.Leamedcounselforthepetitionersubmittedthatthepetitioner was allotted 2gg9 .560 MTs of paddy and since excess stock was allotted to the petitioner than the storage capacity, the petitioner was constrained to store 1879.560 MTs of paddy in the nearby godowns located at chimallaguntapally Village and according to the petitioner, it had orally informed the respondents about the same. However, when there was inspection of the rice mill of the petitioner on 09.01.2025 and it was found that the petitioner has stored 1879.560 MTs', of paddy in another godown, an FIR No.10 of 2025 dt.lz.Ol .2025 has been registered i I I I 2 W.P. No.l9l6 of 2025 against the petitioner. Anticipating further coercive action against the petitioner, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on

10.01.2025, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the District Supply Officer (DSO), Wanaparthy seeking permission to store the paddy in another godown. He 'therefore submits that till his representation is considered and permission is granted, the respondents may be directed not to take any coercive steps to shift the paddy allotted to the petitioner to any other person

4. Learned Govemment Pleader for Civil Supplies, however, submitted that the petitioner has contravened the agreement and as per the terms of the agreement, the petitioner has to store the paddy in its registered mill premises or any other place with the approval of the Collector (Civil Supplies) in case the receipts exceeded the storage capacity in the mill and it shall remain in second part_v custody and the second party will be responsible for any shortage or damage to the paddy/rice stock. He also referred to Clause 12 of the agreement to demonstrate that the rice mill is responsible for the paddy allotted to the mill and any act of diversion of paddy or any shortages found in the paddy with the miller is liable for action under the provisions of 1 3 W.P. No.l9l6 of 2025 Essential Commodities Aot, 1955. He therefore submitted that the petitioner was not eligible for any relief as prayed for by it. Leamed Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation is also

5. heard.

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the respondents have found the paddy allotted to the petitioner partly in the premises of the petitioner and partly in another godown and therefore, FIR No.10 of 2025 has been booked. However, as per Clause 10 ofthe agreement, the petitioner has to seek approval of the Collector (CS) in case the peceipts exceeded the storage capacity in the mill and has to be stored in any other place and in this case, the petitioner does not seem to have done so, though it submits that orally it has informed the authorities about the same and that they have knowledge of the same. After inspection on 09.01.2025, the petitioner claims to have made an application on 10.01.2025 to this effect. \ However, as pointed out by the learned Govemment Pleader, the endorsement of the office of the DSO thereon was on 20.01.2025. 7 . Be that as it may, this Court is of the opinion that since there is no variation in the stock allotted to the petitioner which was found in the I ) t I 4 W.P. No. t9l6 of 2025 premises of the petitioner as well as in another godown' the respondents may consider the application of the petitioner for permission to store the stock in any other place as the allotment exceeded its storage capaclty and the petitioner was willing to custon\ mill the paddy and supply the CMR as per the agreement' As the leamed Govemment Pleader has pointed out that the application filed by the petitioner is not in proper format and is not to the appropriate authority' this Court deems it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to make a fresh application in proper format to the appropriate authority within a period of one week from today and the respondent authorities shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon' Till such time' the respondents shall not take any coercive steps' The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of' No order as to costs' Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any' in this Writ Petition shall 8 9 stand closed. /ITRUE COPY// SD/- N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ SECTION OFFICER '\,rr*,,B[f :""*"""ff '8fl ,l".,oo?Y:"T[1"J,:3:ff#H:l:[:$h":[13]:"*" HYderabad, Telangana'-'et / I I

3. +r: ?qlh??ffi[iff*ffi$Ji*':ri::iffi:q{;",i:lls!,#;["i*"'/ \ ; sritr$urrfffiiif-Tu,f*;';*; ffi;''fi *' "

7. Two CD CoPies KKS BN % HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 CC TODAY t I 1HE S14 16 c o 27 t[!( zffi 2 * t: ...,.' ORDER WP.No.1916 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS