Allahabad High Court

1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ms. Nabeela Arjumand, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ved Byas Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and 3 and Sri Mukul Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Challenge has been raised to the recovery citation dated 05.07.2025 to recover Rs.26,57,367/- from the petitioner for the season 2011-12.

3. In short, it has been shown after the earlier order of the Writ Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.54788 of 2014 (M/s Pooja Rice Mill and another Vs. State of U.P. and others), 2014:AHC:187370-DB requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs.21,74,731.44/-, within one month, the respondent no.2 & 3 constituted a seven member Committee to examine the issue. Relying on the resolution of the said Committee dated 25.02.2015 (Annexure-10), it has been stressed that against the original demand in excess of Rs.21 lakh, the Committee found that the petitioner was liable for payment of Rs.13,04,251.44/- for the season 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13. It also recognized that certain amounts may be due and payable to the petitioner. For that it permitted the petitioner to raise a claim.

4. Relying on the claim made on 08.07.2015 (Annexure 11), it has been pointed out that the petitioner has claimed payment of Rs.11,15,732.30/-. That claim has remained pending. Citing earlier discrepancies in the computation of amount, it has been claimed that the respondents have been shifting their stand. 2 WRIC No. 40358 of 2025

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the amount had been crystalized at Rs.21,74,731.44/-, on the earlier occasion, before a co-ordinate bench. The petitioner has not made compliance of that order inasmuch as it has been only deposited Rs.7,25,400/- on 10.11.2014. Therefore no arbitration could arise and the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the observations made in M/s Ma Bhawani Rice Mill and another Vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ Petition No.35296 of 2013 with respect to the price of paddy.

6. Also, it has been stressed, as on date, the claim of the petitioner raised on

08.07.2015 (Annexure No.11) has not been examined. Further Sri Ved Byas Mishra would contend that since the communication dated 25.02.2015 has been issued outside the process of arbitration, the respondents may be permitted to verify the correctness of the contend of Annexure No.10 of the writ petition and the computation of the amount due from the petitioner for the seasons 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, while it is not possible to adjudicate the fact dispute brought by the parties, it has to be acknowledged that despite earlier direction issued by a co-ordinate bench in Pooja Rice Mill (supra), not only the petitioner may have failed to deposit the amount Rs.21,74,731.44/- (as directed by the Co- ordinate Bench) but at the same time a seven member Committee was formed by respondent no.2 and 3, to determine the amount due from the petitioner. To the extent, the communication dated 25.02.2015 indicates that such examination was made and the dues claimed from the petitioner were determined at Rs.13,04,251.44/- for the seasons 2010-11 to 2012-13 and further to the extent the said communication also indicates that the petitioner was given an opportunity to raise the claim of any amount that they may claim towards payment of rice etc., it may be unduly harsh to dismiss the petition reason of non-compliance of the condition to pay Rs.21,74,731.44/-, under the earlier order (noted above).

8. Further, to the extent it does appear- at least on prima facie basis, the seven member Committee had revised the due amount claimed from the petitioner to Rs.13,04,251.44/- against which the petitioner appears to have claimed adjustment of payment due Rs.11,15,732.30/-, the respondents may have erred in not examining that issue, till now. 3 WRIC No. 40358 of 2025

9. We further note that at present, the respondent nos.2 and 3 have not given their consent to the correctness of the contents of the communication dated

25.02.2025, relied by the petitioner. At the same time, since that communication does appear to exist, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending or calling for counter affidavit at this stage.

10. Subsequent events as noted above, have altered the situation as may require a fresh decision to be made by respondent no.3 or by any Officer authorised by him with respect to the above noted dispute.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.2,50,000/- within a period of one week from today, respondent no.2 may (either himself or through appropriate Officer to be authorised by him) get the claim of the petitioner examined a fresh in the light of communications dated 25.02.2015 and 08.07.2015 (Annexure No.10 & 11), and pass appropriate reasoned order determining the actual amount due from or to the petitioner, as the case may be.

12. It is made clear that in making that exercise, it will remain open to the respondent no.2 or the Officer authorised by him to examine the correctness of the claim of the petitioner -that the seven member Committee had revised the amount being claimed from the petitioner to Rs.13,04,251.44/- (in all). If the case of the respondents is that the said amount is besides the amount Rs.21,74,731.44/- (provided by this Court under its earlier order), adequate facts and reasons would be disclosed in the order to be passed in compliance of this order, to establish such facts.

13. Subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.2,50,000/-, no coercive measure may be adopted against the petitioner for a period of six weeks or till fresh order has been passed in compliance of this order, whichever is earlier. November 25, 2025 Mohit (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)

1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ms. Nabeela Arjumand, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ved Byas Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and 3 and Sri Mukul Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Challenge has been raised to the recovery citation dated 05.07.2025 to recover Rs.26,57,367/- from the petitioner for the season 2011-12.

3. In short, it has been shown after the earlier order of the Writ Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.54788 of 2014 (M/s Pooja Rice Mill and another Vs. State of U.P. and others), 2014:AHC:187370-DB requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs.21,74,731.44/-, within one month, the respondent no.2 & 3 constituted a seven member Committee to examine the issue. Relying on the resolution of the said Committee dated 25.02.2015 (Annexure-10), it has been stressed that against the original demand in excess of Rs.21 lakh, the Committee found that the petitioner was liable for payment of Rs.13,04,251.44/- for the season 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13. It also recognized that certain amounts may be due and payable to the petitioner. For that it permitted the petitioner to raise a claim.

4. Relying on the claim made on 08.07.2015 (Annexure 11), it has been pointed out that the petitioner has claimed payment of Rs.11,15,732.30/-. That claim has remained pending. Citing earlier discrepancies in the computation of amount, it has been claimed that the respondents have been shifting their stand. 2 WRIC No. 40358 of 2025

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the amount had been crystalized at Rs.21,74,731.44/-, on the earlier occasion, before a co-ordinate bench. The petitioner has not made compliance of that order inasmuch as it has been only deposited Rs.7,25,400/- on 10.11.2014. Therefore no arbitration could arise and the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the observations made in M/s Ma Bhawani Rice Mill and another Vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ Petition No.35296 of 2013 with respect to the price of paddy.

6. Also, it has been stressed, as on date, the claim of the petitioner raised on

08.07.2015 (Annexure No.11) has not been examined. Further Sri Ved Byas Mishra would contend that since the communication dated 25.02.2015 has been issued outside the process of arbitration, the respondents may be permitted to verify the correctness of the contend of Annexure No.10 of the writ petition and the computation of the amount due from the petitioner for the seasons 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, while it is not possible to adjudicate the fact dispute brought by the parties, it has to be acknowledged that despite earlier direction issued by a co-ordinate bench in Pooja Rice Mill (supra), not only the petitioner may have failed to deposit the amount Rs.21,74,731.44/- (as directed by the Co- ordinate Bench) but at the same time a seven member Committee was formed by respondent no.2 and 3, to determine the amount due from the petitioner. To the extent, the communication dated 25.02.2015 indicates that such examination was made and the dues claimed from the petitioner were determined at Rs.13,04,251.44/- for the seasons 2010-11 to 2012-13 and further to the extent the said communication also indicates that the petitioner was given an opportunity to raise the claim of any amount that they may claim towards payment of rice etc., it may be unduly harsh to dismiss the petition reason of non-compliance of the condition to pay Rs.21,74,731.44/-, under the earlier order (noted above).

8. Further, to the extent it does appear- at least on prima facie basis, the seven member Committee had revised the due amount claimed from the petitioner to Rs.13,04,251.44/- against which the petitioner appears to have claimed adjustment of payment due Rs.11,15,732.30/-, the respondents may have erred in not examining that issue, till now. 3 WRIC No. 40358 of 2025

9. We further note that at present, the respondent nos.2 and 3 have not given their consent to the correctness of the contents of the communication dated

25.02.2025, relied by the petitioner. At the same time, since that communication does appear to exist, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending or calling for counter affidavit at this stage.

10. Subsequent events as noted above, have altered the situation as may require a fresh decision to be made by respondent no.3 or by any Officer authorised by him with respect to the above noted dispute.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.2,50,000/- within a period of one week from today, respondent no.2 may (either himself or through appropriate Officer to be authorised by him) get the claim of the petitioner examined a fresh in the light of communications dated 25.02.2015 and 08.07.2015 (Annexure No.10 & 11), and pass appropriate reasoned order determining the actual amount due from or to the petitioner, as the case may be.

12. It is made clear that in making that exercise, it will remain open to the respondent no.2 or the Officer authorised by him to examine the correctness of the claim of the petitioner -that the seven member Committee had revised the amount being claimed from the petitioner to Rs.13,04,251.44/- (in all). If the case of the respondents is that the said amount is besides the amount Rs.21,74,731.44/- (provided by this Court under its earlier order), adequate facts and reasons would be disclosed in the order to be passed in compliance of this order, to establish such facts.

13. Subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.2,50,000/-, no coercive measure may be adopted against the petitioner for a period of six weeks or till fresh order has been passed in compliance of this order, whichever is earlier. November 25, 2025 Mohit (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)