High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 0f the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction, more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the inaction of the 3rd respondent in paying the: amount due to the petitioner towards the suppry of seeds of Bengargram. soyabeans and Groundnuts under Agreements during the Rabi 201g - 201g and Rabi 201 9 -2020 as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and to issue a consequentiat to the 3rd respondent to pay the amount of Rs.1,93,93,055/_ due to the petitioner towards supply of seeds of Bengargram, soyabeans and Groundnuts under Agreements during the Rabi 2018 - 201ga* Rabi 2o1g -2020 together with interest under section 16 0f the Micro sma, and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. IA N 23 OF { Petition und e[ :Section 151 cPC PraYing th port of the writ Petition' th ent to PaY the amount ly of seeds of Bengalgram' g the Rabi 2018 the affidavit filed in suP direct the 3rd resPc nd petitioner towards suPP under Agreements clurin disPosal of the main Writ Petition at in the circumstances stated in h Court may be Pleased to e Hig s.l,93,93'0551 due to the ofR Soyabeans and Groundnuts 2019 and Rabi 2019 -2020' Pending Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms' VEDULA CHITRALEKHA Counsel for the Respondent Nos' 'l&2: GP FOR AGRICULTURE Counsel for the Respondent No'3: SRI M' PRATHEEK REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER I TIIE IIONOT.IRABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADEAWDEVI PETITION NO I 7099 or' 2023 ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the 3d respondent in paying the amounts due to the petitioner towards the supply of seeds of Bengal gram, Soya beans and Groundnuts under agreemenrs during the Rabi 20r g-20I 9 and 2019_ 2020 u illegal and arbitrary and ro consequently arJ;":; respondent to pay the sum of Rs.l,93,93,055/_ together with interest under Section 16 of the Micro, Small and Medium ar,";; Development Act,2006 (for short, ,the MSMED Act,) and to pass such . other order or orders.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Multi State co-operative Institution established in the year lg4g and is catering to the needs of the State for supply of seeds, fertilizers and other agricultural inputs and marketing infrastructure to the Departments of Horticulture, Agriculture and Marketing and that the State Govemment has nominated the 3.d respondent as its Irdodal Agency for supply of various items ro the Departments of the State Govemment to \ W.P.No.1?099 of 2023 2 from the 3'd respondent' procur€ varic'us materials/articles/services Therefore, the 3d respondent is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is amenable to writ jurisdicti<ln' It is strb mitted that the petitioner has entered into agreements with 3. the 3'd respondent during the Rabi 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 for supply of seeds of S'lya beans' Bengal gram and Groundnut and is registered as a MSME tmder the MSMED Act in the year 2Ol2 an<l has supplied different qxmtities of seeds to the 3'd respondent and the total value of the same is Rs.4,11,16,627t- and the petitioner was caid a sum of Rs.1,52,6?,313/- up to 10'03'2021 and the outstanding batalnce ls Rs.1,98,49'114/-' It is submitted that the petitioner has thereafter received rr sum of Rs'2'78'055/- and Rs'l'78'2001- on?'7'06'2023 and the balanr:e amount of Rs' 1'93'93'059/- is still payable and since the 3'd respondent is not responding' the present Writ Petition has been hled' I

4. Learned counsel appearing for the 3"r respondent' however' objected to the maintainability of the Writ Petition lt ir; submitted that theWritPetitionisfiIedbythesoleProprietorandnotbytheinstitution and there>Iore,the Writ Petition is not maintainable undcr MSMED Act' It is sutrrnined. that the petitioner has not exhausted the remedies auaipble to it under law and that under Section lg of tjre MSMED AcL 3 w.P.No. 17099 of 2023 the petitioner ought to have approached the competent authority, i.e., the Micro and Sma, Enterprises Faciritation councir to initiate conciriation proceedings and to address its grievance as the mafter pertains to recovery of the amount due' It is further submitted that the writ petition appears to be for seftlement of contractual obligation and not any stafutory obligation on the part of the respondents and therefore, the Writ Petition is not maintainable.

5. The leamed counsel for the petitioner, however, relied upon ihe judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of ZnnalMa nager, Central Bank of India Vs. Devi Ispat Limited and othersr in suplrt .r of his contentions about the maintainability of the Writ petition. He also referred to Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Ac! 2006 ad Section 16 thereof ror rate of interest along with the date from which such interest is payabte.

6. The leamed counsel for the j'd respondent, however, relied upon 9:. the following judgments in support of his contentions and also on Sections 17 and 18 of the MSMED Act for availability of effective remedy. \Boroy rr scc rro I \ I I ! \ i I I i I I I i I W.P.No.1?099 of 2023 4 s. IDPL EmPloYees Clo-oPerative V td., and others2' ration Vs' Vishaka Engineering and (1)SvaPn Constructions GrouP Ilousing SocietY L (2)Miraj lvtarketing CorPo anothe13' 1 . Havingi regard to the rival contentions and the material on record' this Court linds that the petitioner is a proprietary concern and has filed the Writ Pet.ition in the name of the company which has entered into agreements with the 3'd respondent and is represented by its Sole Proprietor, Therefore, the objection of the 3'd respondent abeut *q maintainability of the Writ Petition because it has been li\ed by the Sole Proprietor is not sustainable'

8. As r'egards the other objections about the altemative and effective remedy bt:ing available under the MSMED Act and that it is the contractua obligation which is allegedly as not being; honoured and therefore writ is not maintainable, this Court lin d s that the 3'd respondent is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitut.ion of India and any agreement with the 3'' respondent for discharge of its contractual or statutory obligation can be sought to be t 200J3CC O,,tine Det t3g2 | (2006) t27 DLT 80 ' 200s (79) DRJ 209 (DB) ,7 5 J:H ;; :;..:::.f v' P'No't7ols or zl23 ,he c.ns,itu,i.n ned counsel fo. tlre decisions re,ied " ;;:ire,he trt is of the opinion that the writ petition e distinguishable - enforced by fiIing a Wr ;,::: ;,.ffi ;: ffi;l;J; mainhinable.

9. The respondents therefore directed to consider the :nt of the balance consideration request of and pass the petitioner a. our.." appropriate orders on the representation of the verification of records. The respondents are directe orders within a period of three (3) months from the copy ofthis order. petitioner after dge d to pass necessary date of receipt ofa

10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No orrier as to costs. I1. Pending miscelraneous petitions, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed. To, /,TRUE COPY// Sd/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER Hyderabad - 50O 004. Saifabad, T.S., Hyderabad

1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Secretariat Buildings, 2. The Commissioner of Agriculture, Govt. of Telangana, Basheerbagh, s. fG-l-{Vdlrabid Agricultural Co-operative, Association. (HACA) lmited, 2"d Floor, HACA Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Managing Director- 4. One CC to Ms. VEDULA CHITRALEKHA, Advocate IOPUCI 5. One CC to SRI M. PRATHEEK REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for AGRICULTURE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. Two CD Copies B\[ \lP 59.- ._F- { I I ) I i I i I I I l i HIGH GOURT DATED:21 t}1tt2025 ORDER WP.No.17099 of 2023 BE SIAT e ,,4 1;:r') /,-: t, .i i .) i',r- 'rt..i' \ tl 5 lvlAr 206 .i,'O 9E.spnrc' -:--_--.-: DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @l*q \?b|)-q