[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
M/S Karnataka Food And Civil Supplies ... vs Subramanya Agro Industries Algud Limit on 7 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:18820-DB
WA No. 1854 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1854 OF 2025 (GM-PDS)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES
CORPORATION LTD.,
MYSORE DISTRICT
MYSORE - 570 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DISTRICT MANAGER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SUMANTH L. BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SUBRAMANYA AGRO INDUSTRIES ALGUD LIMIT
Digitally NANJANGUD ROAD
signed by T. NARASIPURA
SRIDEVI S
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 124
Location:
High Court REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
of Karnataka S. MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
2. SRI MAHADESHWAR RICE MILL
GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD
T. NARASIPURA - 571 124
MYSORE DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI B.N. MADEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:18820-DB
WA No. 1854 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. KANAKA RICE INDUSTRIES
NANJANGUD ROAD
T. NARASIPURA - 571 124
MYSORE DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI B.N. SURESH KUAMR A
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
4. SRI KANAKA MODERN RICE MILL
NANJANGUD ROAD
T. NARASIPURA
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 124
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI B.N. SURESH KUAMR
AGED 49 YEARS
5. SRI MAHADESHWAR MODERN BINNY RICE MILL
NO. 597, 560, MUDDABEERANA HUNDI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, T. NARASIPUR - 571 124
MYSORE DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS OWNER
SRI BASAVARAJ B.N
AGE 62 YEARS
6. SRI MALAI MAHADESHWARA INDUSTRIES
YELAVAR HUNDI, T.N PURA TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 101
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
AGE 77 YEARS
7. SRI MADESHWAR AGRO RICE TECH
AYUR ROAD, T. NARASIPUR - 571 101
MYSORE DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI B.N.BADEGOWDA
AGE ABOUT 64 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:18820-DB
WA No. 1854 of 2025
HC-KAR
8. SRI MANJUNATHESHWARA RICE MILL
GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD
VIVEKNANDA NAGAR
T. NARASIPUPAR - 571 124
MYSORE DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI M.P. SIDDARAJU
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
9. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND
CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
10. THE COMMISSIONER FOR FOOD AND
CIVIL SUPPLIES
NO.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001
11. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FOOD)
MYSORE DISTRICT
MYSORE - 570 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., AGA FOR R-9 TO 11)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
IN W.P. No. 13133 OF 2023 (GM-PDS) DISPOSED ON 11.06.2024 BY
THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT b.ALLOW
THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2024
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. No. 13133 OF
2023 (GM-PDS) & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:18820-DB
WA No. 1854 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an
order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.13133/2023 (GM-PDS), whereby the learned Single Judge
had set aside the order dated 30.04.2021 passed by the Appellate
Authority (Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of
Karnataka, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department,
Bangalore), in Appeal No. A.N.A.S.47.RPR/2019 (30396).
2. The Appellate Authority had accepted the respondents' claim
for payment of transportation expenses. A plain reading of the said
order indicates that their claim was accepted on the ground that the
department had also paid transportation costs of hulling in
connection with the MSP process in Tumkur District in the year
2015-16. However, the respondents were not granted any interest
on the claims accepted by the Appellate Authority.
NC: 2026:KHC:18820-DB
HC-KAR
3. There is no dispute regarding the transportation costs, which
were paid. The respondents had preferred the writ petition,
claiming interests at the rate of 12% per annum on the
transportation charges on the ground that the same had been
unjustifiably withheld. The learned Single Judge found that since
the liability to pay transportation charges had been admitted, the
appellants would also be required to pay reasonable interest, so as
to mitigate the hardship caused to the respondents on account of
non-payment of transportation charges. Thus, the learned Single
Judge essentially directed the appellant to compensate the
respondents for the time value of money by paying interest at the
rate of 9% from 01.07.2015 (the date on which the amounts
became due) to 21.11.2022 (the date on which the amounts were
actually paid).
4. The present appeal has been filed after a delay of 451 days.
The affidavit accompanying the present appeal indicates that the
respondents have questioned the decision to direct payment of
interest on the merits. Insofar as the delay is concerned, the
explanation provided by the respondents reads as follows:
NC: 2026:KHC:18820-DB
HC-KAR
"5. I submit that, all the respondents in the writ
proceedings were collectively represented by the
learned Government Advocate and as such we were not
having complete knowledge about the court
proceedings and its result. I further submit that,
recently, during the first week of November, 2025 when
I was discussing the matter with higher ups I got
knowledge about the order impugned in this writ appeal.
I submit that, since we being Government organizations
and for administrative reasons we could not take
decision immediately to file and appeal and however
after deliberating the matter with all concerned and
immediately without any further delay the instant writ
appeal has been preferred."
5. It is apparent from the above that apart from claiming
ignorance of the impugned order, the only ground for explaining the
delay is "for administrative reasons". We are unable to accept that
the appellant can claim ignorance of the orders which were passed
in the petition, where they were duly represented by counsel.
Further, the affidavit is bereft of any specific details. It does not
even mention the date when the order was communicated. There
are also no specific details as to the administrative process, which,
according to the appellant, had occasioned the delay in filing the
appeal.
6. In Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd.,1, the
Supreme Court had observed as under:
(2012) 3 SCC 563
NC: 2026:KHC:18820-DB
HC-KAR
"29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the
government bodies, their agencies and
instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and
acceptable explanation for the delay and there was
bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual
explanation that the file was kept pending for several
months/years due to considerable degree of procedural
red tape in the process. The government departments
are under a special obligation to ensure that they
perform their duties with diligence and commitment.
Condonation of delay is an exception and should not
be used as an anticipated benefit for the government
departments. The law shelters everyone under the
same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a
few."
7. We are unable to accept that the inordinate delay of 451
days ought to be condoned on the basis of unsubstantiated
statements of administrative delay as set out in the
affidavit/application. The application seeking condonation of delay
is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as
well.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
SD, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 21
