Patna High Court

M/S R.K. Rice Mill vs The State Of Bihar on 1 February, 2023

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.330 of 2023
     ======================================================

1. M/s R.K. Rice Mill through its proprietor Ramesh Prasad, aged about 33 years, (male), son of Jatashankar Prasad, Resident of Village South Teluha, Ward No. 03, P.S.- Nautan, District- West Champaran, Bihar.

2. M/s Adarsh Rice Mill, through its proprietor Sri. Naresh Sah, aged about 56 years, (male), son of Late Mangal Sah, Resident of Village Singachhapar, P.S.- Bettiah, District- West Champaran, Bihar.

3. M/s Shiv Industries, through its proprietor Sri. Manoj Kumar, aged about 41 years, (male), son of Late Banshi Prasad, Resident of Village Shanti Nagar, P.S.- Bettiah, District- West Champaran, Bihar.

4. M/s Balaji Industries, through its proprietor Sri. Avinash Kumar, aged about 34 years, (male), son of Late Banaras Sah, Resident of Shanti Nagar, P.S.- Bettiha, District- West Champaran, Bihar.

5. M/s Ujjwal Rice Mill, through its proprietor Sri. Ramrup Sah, aged about 55 years, (male), son of Late Ganesh Sah, Resident of Ward No.- 09, Purani Gonauli, Dodusahia, Padri, P.S.- Mufassil, District- West Champaran, Bihar.

6. M/s Jai Mata Di Milling and Traders, through its proprietor Sri. Om Prakash Gupta, aged about 36 years, (male), son of Suresh Prasad, Resident of Village Piparhiya, Ward No.- 10, P.S.- Nawalpur, District- West Champaran, Bihar.

7. M/s Sri Sai Rice Mill, through its proprietor Sri. Pramod Kumar, aged about 46 years, (male), son of Late Bacchu Prasad, Resident of Ward No.- 14, Siswa Sareya, P.S.- Bairiya, District- West Champaran, Bihar.

8. M/s Maa Chintpurni Rice Mill, through its proprietor Sri. Dinesh Prasad, aged about 50 years, (male), son of Pyare Lal Prasad, Resident of Village Ward No.- 2, Maravari, Dharamshala, P.S.- Chanpatia, District- West Champaran, Bihar.

9. M/s Siddhi Vinayak Rice Mill, through its proprietor Sri. Krishna Murari Prasad, aged about 29 years, (male), son of Late Ashok Prasad, Resident of Village Ward No.- 10, Lagdi, P.S.- Lauriya, District- West Champaran, Bihar.

10. M/s Jitesh Rice Mill, through its proprietor Sri. Jitesh Kumar, aged about 28 years, (male), Son of Pannalal Prasad Jaiswal, Resident of Ward no.- 2, Malahi Tola, Balua Rampur, P.S.- Bariya, District- West Champaran, Bihar.

11. M/s Mahalakshmi Enterprises, through its proprietor Sri. Rakesh Kumar, aged about 52 years, (male), son of Parasnath Gupta, Resident of Village Khiriya Ghat, Mithaan, P.S.- Mithaan, District- West Champaran, Bihar.

12. M/s Jai Amba Rice Mill, through its proprietor Sri. Atma Sah, aged about 42 years, (male), son of Gita Sah, Resident of Village Ward No. 3, Malahi Tola, P.S.- Bairiya, District- West Champaran, Bihar.

13. M/s Sheetal Udyog, through its proprietor Sri. Chandrama Yadav, aged about 58 years, (male), son of Late Ramdhari Yadav, Resident of Village Ward No. 9, Gonauli, Dodusahia, Padri, P.S.- Majhaulia, District- West Champaran, Bihar.

Patna High Court CWJC No.330 of 2023 dt.01-02-2023

14. M/s Anmol Rice Mill, through its proprietor Sri. Anuj Kumar, aged about 41 years, (male), son of Late Yamuna Prasad, Resident of Shivpuri Colony, P.S.- Bettiha (Town), District- West Champaran, Bihar.

15. M/s Jai Bajrang Automatic Rice Mill, through its proprietor Sri. Vijay Shankar Sah, aged about 53 years, (male), son of Late Mukeshwar Sah, Resident of Village Mahna, P.O.- Ganaoli, P.S.- Mufassil, District- West Champaran, Bihar.

16. M/s Ganesh Rice Mill, through its proprietor Sri. Jaglal Sah, aged about 45 years, (male), son of Banarasi Sah, Resident of Village Singhadi, P.S.- Bharoganj, District- West Champaran, Bihar.

17. M/s Hari Om Rice Mill, through its proprietor Sri. Vinit Kumar, aged about 32 years, (male), son of Ravindra Jaiswal, Resident of Village Tikulia, P.S.- Chanpatiya, District- West Champaran, Bihar.

18. M/s Ishika Rice Mill, through its proprietor Sri. Yogendra Kumar, aged about 41 years, (male), son of Late Rajbanshi Sah, Resident of Ward No.- 9, Church Road Christian Quarter, P.S.- Bettiah, Town, District West Champaran, Bihar.

19. M/s Maa Radhika Enterprises, through its proprietor Sri. Ravi Kumar, aged about 29 years, (male), son of Om Prakash Sahu, Resident of Chanpatiya, P.S.- Chanpatiya, District- West Champaran, Bihar.

20. M/s Shiv Shakti Udyog, through its proprietor Sri. Arvind Kumar, aged about 42 years, (male), son of Late Yamuna Prasad, Resident of Christian Quarter, P.S.- Bettiah Town, District- West Champaran, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna- 800015.

2. The Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna- 800015.

3. The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, through its Managing Director, Khadya Bhawan, Daroga Prasad Rai Path, R-Block, Road No.- 2, Patna- 800001.

4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Khadya Bhawan, Daroga Prasad Rai Path, R- Block, Road No. 2, Patna- 800001.

5. The District Magistrate, West Champaran.

6. The District Manager, BSFC, West Champaran.

7. The District Supply Officer, West Champaran.

8. The District Co-operative Officer, West Champaran.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate For BSFC : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Advocate Patna High Court CWJC No.330 of 2023 dt.01-02-2023

For the State : Mr. Vijay Kumar, AC to AAG 5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 01-02-2023

Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s) :-

"a) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to allow the Petitioners to participate in Khariff Marketing Season 2022- 2023 and to ensure that petitioners are supplied paddy procured by the Primary Agriculture Centres in the district of West Champaran for milling the same into Raw Rice (Arwa).

b) This Hon'ble Court may adjudicate and hold that exclusion of Raw Rice (Arwa) Rice millers from the process of milling of paddy procured during Khariff Marketing Season 2022- 2023 by substantially reducing the procurement target of Raw Rice (Arwa), is completely unreasonable and unjustified. C) This Hon'ble Court may further adjudicate and hold that fixation of procurement target of Raw Rice (Arwa) in West Champaran by the Respondents is highly arbitrary and unreasonable in nature and is not based upon any empirical study or data.

d) This Hon'ble Court may further adjudicate and hold that the Respondents cannot resile from the assurances given to the Raw Rice (Arwa) Millers in resolution contained in memo no.4618 dated 13.10.2022 and guidelines contained in memo no. 8922 dated 28.10.2022 and change the rules of game after the same Patna High Court CWJC No.330 of 2023 dt.01-02-2023

has been set in motion.

e) This Hon'ble Court may adjudicate and hold that in light of resolution contained in memo no. 4618 dated 13.10.2022 and guidelines contained in memo no. 8922 dated 28.10.2022 the Petitioners have a legitimate expectation of participating in Khariff Marketing Season 2022-2023 by obtaining paddy and milling it into Raw Rice (Arwa).

f) This Hon'ble Court may further adjudicate and hold that considering the fact that there are only three Par boiled (Usna) Rice mill in the district of West Champaran, the Respondent should not have entrusted the entire quantity of paddy procured in the district of West Champaran upon them for milling.

g) This Hon'ble Court may further adjudicate and hold that the intent of state government as decipherable from resolution contained in memo no. 4618 dated 13.10.2022 and guidelines contained in memo no. 8922 dated 28.10.2022 was not to substantially reduce the procurement of Raw Rice (Arwa) and exclude private Raw Rice (Arwa) Millers rather only to give preference to Par Boiled Rice (Usna)

h) To award any other relief or reliefs in the fact and circumstance of the case."

After the matter was heard for some time, finding the

Bench not to be agreeable with the submissions made by learned

counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the petitioners,

under instructions, states that petitioners shall be content if a

direction is issued to the authority concerned to consider and Patna High Court CWJC No.330 of 2023 dt.01-02-2023

decide the representation which the petitioners shall be filing

within a period of four weeks from today for redressal of the

grievance(s).

Learned counsel for the respondents states that if

such a representation is filed by the petitioners, the authority

concerned shall consider and dispose it of expeditiously and

preferably within a period of four months from the date of its

filing along with a copy of this order.

Statement accepted and taken on record.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in D. N. Jeevaraj Vs.

Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka & Ors, (2016) 2

SCC 653, paragraphs 34 to 38 observed as under:-

"34. The learned counsel for the parties addressed us on the question of the bona fides of Nagalaxmi Bai in filing a public interest litigation. We leave this question open and do not express any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the High Court in this regard.

35. However, we note that generally speaking, procedural technicalities ought to take a back seat in public interest litigation. This Court held in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. [Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504] to this effect as follows: (SCC p. 515, para 16)

"16. The writ petitions before us are not inter parties disputes and have been raised by way of public interest litigation and the controversy before the court is as to whether for social safety and for creating a hazardless environment for the people to live in, mining in the area should be permitted or stopped.

We may not be taken to have said that for Patna High Court CWJC No.330 of 2023 dt.01-02-2023

public interest litigations, procedural laws do not apply. At the same time it has to be remembered that every technicality in the procedural law is not available as a defence when a matter of grave public importance is for consideration before the court."

36. A considerable amount has been said about public interest litigation in R&M Trust [R&M Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group, (2005) 3 SCC 91] and it is not necessary for us to dwell any further on this except to say that in issues pertaining to good governance, the courts ought to be somewhat more liberal in entertaining public interest litigation. However, in matters that may not be of moment or a litigation essentially directed against one organisation or individual (such as the present litigation which was directed only against Sadananda Gowda and later Jeevaraj was impleaded) ought not to be entertained or should be rarely entertained. Other remedies are also available to public spirited litigants and they should be encouraged to avail of such remedies.

37. In such cases, that might not strictly fall in the category of public interest litigation and for which other remedies are available, insofar as the issuance of a writ of mandamus is concerned, this Court held in Union of India v. S.B. Vohra [Union of India v. S.B. Vohra, (2004) 2 SCC 150: 2004 SCC (L&S) 363] that: (SCC p. 160, paras 12-13)

"12. Mandamus literally means a command. The essence of mandamus in England was that it was a royal command issued by the King's Bench (now Queen's Bench) directing performance of a public legal duty.

13. A writ of mandamus is issued in favour of a person who establishes a legal right in himself. A writ of mandamus is issued against a person who has a legal duty to perform but has failed and/or neglected to do so. Such a legal duty emanates from either in discharge of a public duty or by operation of law. The writ of mandamus is of a most extensive remedial nature. The object of mandamus is to prevent disorder from a Patna High Court CWJC No.330 of 2023 dt.01-02-2023

failure of justice and is required to be granted in all cases where law has established no specific remedy and whether justice despite demanded has not been granted."

38. A salutary principle or a well-

recognised rule that needs to be kept in mind before issuing a writ of mandamus was stated in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India [Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India, (1974) 2 SCC 630] in the following words: (SCC pp. 641-42, paras 24-25)

"24. ... The powers of the High Court under Article 226 are not strictly confined to the limits to which proceedings for prerogative writs are subject in English practice. Nevertheless, the well-recognised rule that no writ or order in the nature of a mandamus would issue when there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty applies in this country as well. Even in cases of alleged breaches of mandatory duties, the salutary general rule, which is subject to certain exceptions, applied by us, as it is in England, when a writ of mandamus is asked for, could be stated as we find it set out in Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Edn.), Vol. 11, p. 106:

'198. Demand for performance must precede application.--As a general rule the order will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply, and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and that that demand was met by a refusal.'

25. In the cases before us there was no such demand or refusal. Thus, no ground whatsoever is shown here for the issue of any writ, order, or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution."

As such, petition stands disposed of on the following Patna High Court CWJC No.330 of 2023 dt.01-02-2023

terms:-

(a) Petitioners shall approach the authority concerned

i.e. Respondent No. 2, namely, The Secretary, Food

and Consumer Protection Department, Government

of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna within a period of

three weeks from today by filing a representation

for redressal of the grievance(s);

(b) The authority concerned shall consider and dispose

it of expeditiously by a reasoned and speaking

order preferably within a period of four months

from the date of its filing along with a copy of this

order;

(c) The order assigning reasons shall be communicated

to the petitioners;

(d) Needless to add, while considering such

representation, principles of natural justice shall be

followed and due opportunity of hearing afforded

to the parties;

(e) Also, opportunity to place on record all relevant

materials/documents shall be granted to the parties;

(f) Equally, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to take

recourse to such alternative remedies as are Patna High Court CWJC No.330 of 2023 dt.01-02-2023

otherwise available in accordance with law;

(g) We are hopeful that as and when petitioners take

recourse to such remedies, as are otherwise

available in law, before the appropriate forum, the

same shall be dealt with, in accordance with law

and with reasonable dispatch;

(h) Liberty reserved to the petitioners to approach the

appropriate forum/Court, should the need so arise

subsequently on the same and subsequent cause of

action;