✦ High Court of India · 25 Sep 2025

Masers Alvina Rice Mill Thru. Proprietor Moiz Ahmad v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies And

Case Details High Court of India · 25 Sep 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
25 Sep 2025
Bench
SANGEETA CHANDRABRIJ RAJ SINGH
Length
1,576 words

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayers:- "(I) issue a writ, order or direction in nature of CERTIOARI thereby quashing the impugned recovery order passed by the opposite party No.4 after summoning the same and further be pleased to quash the impugned Recovery Citation Dated 12.8.2025 issued by the opposite party No.6 (contained as Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition). (II) issue a writ, order or direction in nature of MANDAMUS restraining the opposite parties not to adopt any coercive measure against the petitioner in pursuant to the recovery proceedings as initiated by the opposite party no.6 by the recovery citation dated 12.8.2025."

3. It is the case of the petitioner that under the statutory obligation it is doing custom milling of paddy provided by the respondents, converting it into rice and supplying it to the respondents. Initially, for the session 2011-12, respondents had supplied 2015 quintal paddy for hauling and the petitioner had supplied all the custom milled rice against such paddy supplied, but for the session 2012-13, respondent no.4 without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner and without providing any opportunity of hearing passed an 2 WRIC No. 9415 of 2025 order on 20.8.2013, directing recovery of Rs.45,54,771/-, saying that the custom milled rice had not been supplied despite proper supply of paddy to the petitioner. Against the said order dated 20.8.2013 passed by respondent no.4, petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.8630 (MB) of 2013 before this Court. This Court by order dated 20.9.2013 directed the competent authority to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner and till a decision is taken on such representation, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent no.4 passed an order passed an order on

4.1.2014, directing recovery of Rs.45,54,771/- for non supply of 2347.905 quintal of custom milled rice and disposed of the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the order dated 4.1.2014 in another writ petition, bearing Writ Petition No.6027 (MB) of 2014, which was disposed of by this Court on 7.8.2014 with a direction to the petitioner to move an application before the competent authority for appointment of an Arbitrator. The petitioner approached the respondents for appointment of an Arbitrator and the matter was referred to the Arbitrator. The respondent no.4 stayed/suspended the recovery proceedings thereafter as is evident from Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Thereafter, a fresh order was passed, directing the Tehsildar, Sadar, Ayodhya not to recover the amount shown in the recovery citation. The petitioner is still participating in the arbitration which is still carried out by the Arbitrator appointed by the State Government i.e. the Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya, yet the recovery citation has again been issued against the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned Standing Counsel has produced before this Court the instructions sent by the Regional Food Marketing Officer, Ayodhya Region, Ayodhya dated 24.9.2025, wherein the respondents have referred to the judgment and order dated 24.2.2014 passed by this Court in Writ-C No.35296 of 2013 (M/s. Maa Bhawani Rice Mill and another vs. State of U.P. and others) regarding 161 Rice Mills and the recovery proceedings were initiated for non supply of custom milled rice as against the paddy supplied to them. A Division Bench of this Court had passed the following order on 24.2.2014: "Thus, after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, and while balancing individual interest of the petitioners on one hand, and the public interest on the other hand, we consider it expedient to direct the 3 WRIC No. 9415 of 2025 petitioners to deposit the price of paddy/ proportionate price of CMR @ Rs.1611.93 per quintal with the State Government within a period of one month from today. The petitioners will make a self calculation of the amount as per the figures of deficit CMR given in the impugned orders and deposit the same within the period stipulated above, without prejudice to their rights and contentions before the arbitrator. Amount already deposited under interim order of this Court or in pursuance of the recovery certificates issued in particular cases, shall be adjusted while calculating the amount due, to be deposited under this order. Only, on such deposit being made, all recovery proceedings and consequential action, including orders debarring/ blacklisting the millers from future hulling shall remain in abeyance. The Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies will proceed to adjudicate upon the rival claims of the parties. The State Government as well as petitioners are free to file their respective statement of claims before the Arbitrator, who shall make all endeavour to conclude the arbitration proceedings within a further period of six months, uninfluenced by any observation made in this judgment. Recovery of any further sum from petitioners shall abide by the final outcome of the arbitration proceedings. Those who fail to deposit the price of paddy at the rate and within the timeframe as stipulated above, their writ-petitions will be deemed to be dismissed. In some cases, the petitioners have raised dispute regarding quantity of paddy received and / or the quantity of deficit CMR. It shall be open to those petitioners to raise such dispute also before the Arbitrator, but for making deposit of the amount as directed by this Court, the figures mentioned in the impugned orders will be assumed to be correct, failing which their writ petitions will be treated to be dismissed."

5. The said judgment of the coordinate Bench was affirmed in appeal by the Supreme Court i.e. Special Leave Petition No.9019 of 2014 (M/s. Kanhaiya Industries vs. Food Corporation of India and others) by order dated

15.4.2014. The operative portion of the said order is being quoted hereinbelow: "Having heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and caveator respondent no.7, while we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 24th February, 2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, we allow the petitioner deposit price of the paid Stock proportionate price of 4 WRIC No. 9415 of 2025 CMR as decided by High Court by 15th June, 2014, failing which the petitioner shall liable to pay interest @ 12% from the due date till the amount is paid. The impugned order (s) of High Court shall stand modified to the extend above. The special leave petitions stand disposed of."

6. It is evident that the order dated 7.8.2014 passed in the writ petition of the petitioner, was passed following the directions issued by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 24.2.2014 and by the Supreme Court on 15.4.2014.

7. The respondents have also placed reliance upon the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition (MB) No.11474 of 2013, decided on 23.12.2014 relying upon the judgment rendered in the case of M/s. Maa Bhawani Rice Mill (supra) as affirmed by the Supreme Court. There was a direction to the Millers to deposit the price of the paid stock proportionate price of custom milled rice as decided by the High Court by

15.6.2014, failing which the petitioners were also liable to pay interest @ 12% from the due date till the amount was paid. The Division Bench had observed that the Apex Court leaves no room of doubt that the issue being raised in the writ petition, has been adjudicated finally in M/s. Maa Bhawani Rice Mill (supra), which stands affirmed by the Supreme Court. The coordinate Bench had found no reason to take a different view.

8. The arbitration between the petitioner and respondents is continuing, but there are two Government Orders in this regard, namely, Government Orders dated 9.10.2015 and 17.12.2015 wherein reference has been made of the orders passed by the High Court as well as by the Supreme Court, and it has been stated in the said Government Orders that the disputed amount, as calculated in terms of the shortfall in custom milled rice, has to be deposited by the Millers before the arbitration proceedings are disposed of. The petitioner has to deposit the amount as calculated on the basis of Rs.1611.93 per quintal of the left over custom milled rice i.e. for 2347.905 quintal, which was found short in supply by the petitioner.

9. It has been stated in the said instructions that only because arbitration proceedings are pending, recovery of dues, as aforesaid, cannot be ignored. In case the petitioner would have deposited the amount as per Government Orders dated 9.10.2015 and 17.12.2015, which was issued in pursuance of the judgments in the case of M/s. Maa Bhawani Rice Mill (supra), and also 5 WRIC No. 9415 of 2025 M/s. Kanhaiya Industries (supra), decided by the Supreme Court, then the recovery proceedings could have been stayed during pendency of the arbitration proceedings. The instructions are kept on record.

10. The writ petition stands dismissed. September 25, 2025 Sachin (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayers:- "(I) issue a writ, order or direction in nature of CERTIOARI thereby quashing the impugned recovery order passed by the opposite party No.4 after summoning the same and further be pleased to quash the impugned Recovery Citation Dated 12.8.2025 issued by the opposite party No.6 (contained as Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition). (II) issue a writ, order or direction in nature of MANDAMUS restraining the opposite parties not to adopt any coercive measure against the petitioner in pursuant to the recovery proceedings as initiated by the opposite party no.6 by the recovery citation dated 12.8.2025."

3. It is the case of the petitioner that under the statutory obligation it is doing custom milling of paddy provided by the respondents, converting it into rice and supplying it to the respondents. Initially, for the session 2011-12, respondents had supplied 2015 quintal paddy for hauling and the petitioner had supplied all the custom milled rice against such paddy supplied, but for the session 2012-13, respondent no.4 without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner and without providing any opportunity of hearing passed an 2 WRIC No. 9415 of 2025 order on 20.8.2013, directing recovery of Rs.45,54,771/-, saying that the custom milled rice had not been supplied despite proper supply of paddy to the petitioner. Against the said order dated 20.8.2013 passed by respondent no.4, petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.8630 (MB) of 2013 before this Court. This Court by order dated 20.9.2013 directed the competent authority to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner and till a decision is taken on such representation, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent no.4 passed an order passed an order on

4.1.2014, directing recovery of Rs.45,54,771/- for non supply of 2347.905 quintal of custom milled rice and disposed of the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the order dated 4.1.2014 in another writ petition, bearing Writ Petition No.6027 (MB) of 2014, which was disposed of by this Court on 7.8.2014 with a direction to the petitioner to move an application before the competent authority for appointment of an Arbitrator. The petitioner approached the respondents for appointment of an Arbitrator and the matter was referred to the Arbitrator. The respondent no.4 stayed/suspended the recovery proceedings thereafter as is evident from Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Thereafter, a fresh order was passed, directing the Tehsildar, Sadar, Ayodhya not to recover the amount shown in the recovery citation. The petitioner is still participating in the arbitration which is still carried out by the Arbitrator appointed by the State Government i.e. the Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya, yet the recovery citation has again been issued against the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned Standing Counsel has produced before this Court the instructions sent by the Regional Food Marketing Officer, Ayodhya Region, Ayodhya dated 24.9.2025, wherein the respondents have referred to the judgment and order dated 24.2.2014 passed by this Court in Writ-C No.35296 of 2013 (M/s. Maa Bhawani Rice Mill and another vs. State of U.P. and others) regarding 161 Rice Mills and the recovery proceedings were initiated for non supply of custom milled rice as against the paddy supplied to them. A Division Bench of this Court had passed the following order on 24.2.2014: "Thus, after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, and while balancing individual interest of the petitioners on one hand, and the public interest on the other hand, we consider it expedient to direct the 3 WRIC No. 9415 of 2025 petitioners to deposit the price of paddy/ proportionate price of CMR @ Rs.1611.93 per quintal with the State Government within a period of one month from today. The petitioners will make a self calculation of the amount as per the figures of deficit CMR given in the impugned orders and deposit the same within the period stipulated above, without prejudice to their rights and contentions before the arbitrator. Amount already deposited under interim order of this Court or in pursuance of the recovery certificates issued in particular cases, shall be adjusted while calculating the amount due, to be deposited under this order. Only, on such deposit being made, all recovery proceedings and consequential action, including orders debarring/ blacklisting the millers from future hulling shall remain in abeyance. The Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies will proceed to adjudicate upon the rival claims of the parties. The State Government as well as petitioners are free to file their respective statement of claims before the Arbitrator, who shall make all endeavour to conclude the arbitration proceedings within a further period of six months, uninfluenced by any observation made in this judgment. Recovery of any further sum from petitioners shall abide by the final outcome of the arbitration proceedings. Those who fail to deposit the price of paddy at the rate and within the timeframe as stipulated above, their writ-petitions will be deemed to be dismissed. In some cases, the petitioners have raised dispute regarding quantity of paddy received and / or the quantity of deficit CMR. It shall be open to those petitioners to raise such dispute also before the Arbitrator, but for making deposit of the amount as directed by this Court, the figures mentioned in the impugned orders will be assumed to be correct, failing which their writ petitions will be treated to be dismissed."

5. The said judgment of the coordinate Bench was affirmed in appeal by the Supreme Court i.e. Special Leave Petition No.9019 of 2014 (M/s. Kanhaiya Industries vs. Food Corporation of India and others) by order dated

15.4.2014. The operative portion of the said order is being quoted hereinbelow: "Having heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and caveator respondent no.7, while we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 24th February, 2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, we allow the petitioner deposit price of the paid Stock proportionate price of 4 WRIC No. 9415 of 2025 CMR as decided by High Court by 15th June, 2014, failing which the petitioner shall liable to pay interest @ 12% from the due date till the amount is paid. The impugned order (s) of High Court shall stand modified to the extend above. The special leave petitions stand disposed of."

6. It is evident that the order dated 7.8.2014 passed in the writ petition of the petitioner, was passed following the directions issued by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 24.2.2014 and by the Supreme Court on 15.4.2014.

7. The respondents have also placed reliance upon the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition (MB) No.11474 of 2013, decided on 23.12.2014 relying upon the judgment rendered in the case of M/s. Maa Bhawani Rice Mill (supra) as affirmed by the Supreme Court. There was a direction to the Millers to deposit the price of the paid stock proportionate price of custom milled rice as decided by the High Court by

15.6.2014, failing which the petitioners were also liable to pay interest @ 12% from the due date till the amount was paid. The Division Bench had observed that the Apex Court leaves no room of doubt that the issue being raised in the writ petition, has been adjudicated finally in M/s. Maa Bhawani Rice Mill (supra), which stands affirmed by the Supreme Court. The coordinate Bench had found no reason to take a different view.

8. The arbitration between the petitioner and respondents is continuing, but there are two Government Orders in this regard, namely, Government Orders dated 9.10.2015 and 17.12.2015 wherein reference has been made of the orders passed by the High Court as well as by the Supreme Court, and it has been stated in the said Government Orders that the disputed amount, as calculated in terms of the shortfall in custom milled rice, has to be deposited by the Millers before the arbitration proceedings are disposed of. The petitioner has to deposit the amount as calculated on the basis of Rs.1611.93 per quintal of the left over custom milled rice i.e. for 2347.905 quintal, which was found short in supply by the petitioner.

9. It has been stated in the said instructions that only because arbitration proceedings are pending, recovery of dues, as aforesaid, cannot be ignored. In case the petitioner would have deposited the amount as per Government Orders dated 9.10.2015 and 17.12.2015, which was issued in pursuance of the judgments in the case of M/s. Maa Bhawani Rice Mill (supra), and also 5 WRIC No. 9415 of 2025 M/s. Kanhaiya Industries (supra), decided by the Supreme Court, then the recovery proceedings could have been stayed during pendency of the arbitration proceedings. The instructions are kept on record.

10. The writ petition stands dismissed. September 25, 2025 Sachin (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Find similar cases Start drafting free
This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments