The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4523 of 2014 M/s. Sitaram Rice Mill State of Odisha & others -versus- …. Petitioner Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate …. Opp. Parties Mr. R.N. Mishra, AGA Mr. D.C. Dhal, Advocate (For O.P. No.2 to 4 CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 08.02.2023 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Opposite Party No1 and learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties No.2 to 4. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 28.02.2014 passed by the Opposite Party No.4-Authorized Officer of Rice Mill-cum-Inspector of Supplies, Sanakhemundi Block under Annexure-6 and further he has prayed for quashing the said order under Annexure-6 and // 2 // further he has prayed for a direction to the Opposite Parties to allow him to operate his rice mill as per the terms of his contract. 4. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner also the Petitioner at the outset submitted that the Petitioner is a Partnership firm was operating as a Rice Miller under the Opposite Parties. He further contended that while he was stored rice stock in the Mill, in October, 20013, the Cyclone Phailin hit at the State of Odisha including the locality where the Mill of the present Petitioner is situated, as a result of which, huge damage has been caused to the Mill as well as the rice stock kept in the Mill premises. However, it was submitted that as a result of such Cycloning storm, the Petitioner has sustained huge loss and such fact is well within the knowledge of the Opposite Parties. It is also contended that the Opposite Party No.3 wrote a letter dated 16.11.2013 to the Opposite Party No.2 intimating the aforesaid fact. In the said letter, a list of affected Mills was submitted and the name of the Petitioner finds place at Serial No.78 of the said list. 5. A field inquiry was conducted by the Office of the C.D.M.O., Ganjam and, accordingly, a Damage Certificate was // 3 // issued by the office of the C.D.M.O. on 20.12.2013 under Annexure-2. The said Damage Certificate has quantified the loss sustained by the present Petitioner due to Cyclone Phailin on 12.10.2013. 6. Thereafter, the Opposite Party-Corporation lodged a claim with the National Insurance Company with whom stocks were insured. A copy of the claim form submitted by the Opposite Party-Corporation has also been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-3. While the matter stood thus, All Orissa Rice Mills Association submitted a representation before the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Food Supply and Consumer Welfare Department, Opposite Party no.1, to compassionate the losses suffered by the Rice Mills affected in Cyclone Phailin. However, it is alleged that no decision was taken by the Government. 7. While this was the situation, the Opposite Party No.4 vide letter dated 28.02.2014 asked the Petitioner to deliver the outstanding stock of rice about 3579 quintals and to deposit around 685 quintals of rice within seven days from the date of that letter, failing which, the Petitioner was threatened of // 4 // coercive action by the Opposite Party No.4. 8. It is alleged by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the letter dated 28.02.2014 has been issued without following principle of natural justice as no opportunity whatsoever was given to the Petition to show cause. Therefore, the Petitioner alleges that the conduct of the Opposite Party No.4 in issuing letter under Annexure-6 is arbitrary and in violation of the principle of natural justice and, accordingly, by filing this present writ petition, he has prayed for quashing of order under Annexure-6. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 submitted that although they have not filed any counter affidavit, however, the impugned letter under Annexure-6 has been issued by Opposite Party No.4 basing on the records maintained at his office. Since the rice stocks were not supplied, notice was issued to the Petitioner under Annexure-6 demanding the outstanding stock which is lying with the Petitioner. So far as the insurance claim or any compassionate is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 that the same is to be considered and decided // 5 // by the Government not by the Opposite Party-Corporation. 10. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1, on the other hand, submitted that the Petitioner has annexed the documents to the writ petition, which was never produced before the authorities. Therefore, he contended that the Petitioner be directed to file his reply before the authority, who shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass necessary order within the stipulated period of time. 11. Considering the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties and upon a careful consideration of the documents filed along with the writ petition, this Court without going into the merits of the matter at this stage, disposes of this writ petition by directing the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.2 by filing a petition taking therein all the grounds available to him in support of his contention along with supporting documents within four weeks from today. In the event such petition is filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law by taking into consideration the documents relied upon by the Petitioner in support of his // 6 // claim and same shall be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of such petition. It is further directed that till the decision is taken on such petition, no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner. The Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to act upon production of a certified copy of this order. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Debasis