J.Venkateswarlu v. The FoodCorporation of India

It appears that the petitioner was a contractor for transporting food grains and sugar from the Central Warehousing Corporation, Suryapet, to the Buffer Stock Centre, Khammam, during the period from 16.10.1998 to 31.10.1998. The weighbridge at Khammam was found to be defective, therefore, some shortage was recorded when compared to what was lifted at Suryapet and delivered at Khammam.

Insofar as this aspect is concerned, the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Khammam, addressed a letter to the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Hyderabad, dated 17.5.2000, which reads as under. “ Please refer to your letter under reference cited, with which this office has been asked to furnish the truck wise details in respect of rice stocks received at BSC- KMM from CWC, Suryapet moved

by Sri J.Venkateswarlu, Transport Contractor. As desired the required particulars of truck-wise receipt of rice stocks moved from CWC, Suryapet to BSC-Khammam were prepared the proforma prescribed by RO, Hyderabad to 14 comprising 19 pages as per the records of BSC- in Col. No.1 Khammam is enclosed herewith for taking further course of action at your end. Further, it is to inform that the weighment of said stocks were conducted on lorry Weigh Bridge at BSC, Khammam from 16.10.98 to 23.10.98. As the Lorry Weigh Bridge was found to be defective on 24.10.98, the transaction of conducting weighment has been stopped and the weighment was conducted on beam scales at the rate of 10% weighment from 27.10.98 to 30.10.98. The lorries were diverted to private Lorry Weigh Bridge from 31.10.98 to 3.11.98 for conducting weighment of the stocks. In the mean time the LWB at BSC has got repaired and transactions of conducting weighment has been started from 5.11.98 to 18.11.98 and 4.12.98 on Lorry Weigh Bridge, BSC, Khammam. In this connection the Deputy Manager (Mech.) of Regional Office, Hyderabad has checked the LWB at BSC, Khammam on 18.11.98 and found defective and advised Asst. Manager (Depot) not to operate the Lorry Weigh Bridge and not to weigh the stocks on Lorry Weigh Bridge of BSC, Khammam, since it is showing variation by beam scale by 63 Kgs. short. Hence, the transaction of movement of rice stocks from CWC, Suryapet to BSC-Khammam completely stopped. The following officers were also served memos, calling for the explanation for shortages noticed.

Sri P.Pentaiah, DM, I/C 2. Sri V.Manikyala Rao, AM (D)

Sri K.Bikshalu, AM (D) Basing on the replies submitted by the Officers, Sr. Regional Manager has taken a decision for imposing the “SENSURE” through orders on the above said officers dated 26.4.98. However, it is assured that every care is being taken to check the day-to-day zero point on Lorry Weigh Bridge before commencement of weighment and whenever the undersigned visits godown the zero point is being checked-up on beam scales as well as the Electronic Lorry Weigh Bridge.” From the above, it is seen that the weighment of stocks were conducted on Lorry Weigh Bridge at BSC, Khammam, from

16.10.1998 to 23.10.1998 and it was found that the lorry weigh bridge was defective. The transaction of conducting weighment has been stopped and weighment was conducted on beam scales at the rate of 10 per cent weighment from 27.10.1998 to

30.10.1998. Thereafter, the lorries were diverted to private lorry weighbridge from 31.10.1998 to 03.11.1998. After the repairs were attended to the weighbridge at BSC, Khammam, it was restored on

05.11.1998. Action was also sought to be initiated against the responsible officers for the said defective function.

3. Now, it is the case of the petitioner that an amount of Rs.68,887/- was deducted from the bills dated 02.11.1998 towards loss of weight. According to the petitioner, the loss of weight was due to the defect in the weighbridge at BSC, Khammam, and not because of any other reasons. It is also asserted by the petitioner that when the weighment was conducted on beam scale, it perfectly tallied with the weighment at loading point (Suryapet). According to him, deducting of this amount i.e., Rs.68,887/- is on the ground that there was variation of the weighment from the loading point to the delivery point. Apart from this, the admitted amounts were also not paid.

The respondents filed a detailed counter-affidavit. It is asserted that weighment of boiled rice stocks was conducted on Lorry Weigh Bridge, Khammam and the weighments shown by the Lorry Weigh Bridge were recorded at the Lorry Weigh Bridge, Khammam from 16.10.1998 to 23.10.1998. The Lorry Weigh Bridge of Khammam found defective on 24.10.1998 and conducting of weighment on the Lorry Weigh Bridge was stopped. The weighments of loads received in trucks from CWC, Suryapet, were weighed on beam scale at 10 per cent weighment from 27.10.1998 to 30.10.1998. The loaded trucks received from CWC, Suryapet, were diverted to private lorry weighbridge from 31.10.1998 to

03.11.1998 and weighment recorded. Again, loaded lorries from CWC, Suryapet, were restored on 05.11.1998.

We are not concerned with the period beyond 31.10.1998. In this writ petition we are concerned only with the period from

16.10.1998 to 31.10.1998. Admittedly, even according to the letter dated 17.5.2000 addressed to the Senior Regional Manager, by the District Manager, Khammam the weighbridge was defective at least during the period from 16.10.1998 to 30.10.1998, which was detected only on 24.10.1998. When weighment was made on beam scale from 24.10.1998 till 30.10.1998 the same perfectly tallied with that of weighments made at loading point. Under these circumstances the contention of the respondents at para 7 of the counter that bills were paid and it is confirmed that an amount of Rs.68,887/- has been deducted towards transit losses, prima facie seems to be not reasonable in view of the letter dated 17.5.2000 addressed by the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Khammam to the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Hyderabad, and also as per the averments in para 6 of the counter. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the respondents have not properly considered the facts and arbitrarily deducted an amount of Rs.68,867/-.

It appears that the respondents further deducted Rs.1,26,360/- and Rs.1,64,411/- and purported to have adjusted towards transit loss caused by the petitioner. According to the petitioner he is also entitled for refund of Rs.90,000/- deposit made by him at the time of entering into the contract towards 50 per cent of the security deposit. The same has not been returned. According to the respondents, the same has been kept in safe custody. Further, an amount of Rs.32,318/- recovered from the bills at the rate of 5 per cent against the balance of 50 per cent security deposit is available in the books of District Office, Nalgonda. According to the petitioner he is entitled for refund of all these amounts, whereas, the respondents have not paid in spite of repeated requests. Further, the representation made by the petitioner in this regard was not considered.