Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishna Agro Industries And ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 2 November, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139724
CWP-23903-2023(O&M) -1- 2023:PHHC:139724
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
106 CWP-23903-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 02.11.2023
KRISHNA AGRO INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER
......... PETITIONERS
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
......... RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr.Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Shivam Grover, Advocate
Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate
Mr. Ritvik Garg, Advocate
Mr. Daksh Uppal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Inderpreet Singh Kang, AAG, Punjab and
Mr. Deepanjay Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate for the FCI.
Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate and
Mr. Rishab Kumar Jain, Advocate
for the caveator.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227
of Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of order dated 15.10.2023
(Annexure P-1) and proposed miller linking order (Annexure P-2) whereby
Jodha Grain Market (Mandi) has been linked with Kila Raipur Milling
Centre.
1 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139724
CWP-23903-2023(O&M) -2- 2023:PHHC:139724
2. The petitioners as well as private respondents are engaged in
the business of milling rice. The petitioners are carrying out job work
activities for the State of Punjab. The petitioners are dependent upon paddy
supplied by State of Punjab. Every year, the State declares milling policy
known as Custom Milling Policy. Like previous years, Custom Milling
Policy for 2023-2024 was notified on 31.07.2023. As per the policy, each
rice mill is attached with a Milling Centre and every Milling Centre consists
of a number of mandis. The expression Milling Centre has been duly
defined in the policy. The petitioners fall within jurisdiction of Sudhar
Milling Centre and private respondents are covered by Kila Raipur Milling
Centre. There is a grain market known as Jodha Mandi which is bone of
dispute between the parties. The said mandi was attached with Sudhar
Milling Centre prior to 2017 and in the year 2017, the State Government
decided to attach the said mandi with Kila Raipur Milling Centre from
where dispute started between the parties. The petitioners preferred CWP
No. 23888 of 2017 before this Court assailing linking of said mandi with
Kila Raipur Milling Centre. This Court vide order dated 09.08.2018
disposed of said petition. The relevant extracts of the said order read as :
"The learned State counsel submits that the
linkage has been done in pursuance of Item No.5 of the
policy for the year 2017-18. She further states that the
petitioners never approached the respondents in
response to the letter dated 29.09.2017 whereby the
petitioners were offered to bear the transportation
charges for additional supplies of the paddy. The
petitioners instead of sending response to the concerned
DFSO sent their response to the procurement agency i.e.
MARKFED and PUNGRAIN, however, this statement is
controverted by learned counsel for the petitioners.
2 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139724
CWP-23903-2023(O&M) -3- 2023:PHHC:139724
Learned State counsel, on instructions states that in case
the terms and conditions of the policy of 2018-19
remains the same, in that eventuality, the petitioners are
free to approach the concerned DFSO with undertaking
that they will pay the transportation charges and
accordingly the linkage to that extent will be done."
3. The Food and Supplies Officer, Raikot vide memo dated
18.09.2018 formed an opinion that Jodha Mandi should be linked with
Sudhar Milling Center as was linked earlier. The said communication came
to be challenged by private respondents before this Court by way of CWP
No.32699 of 2018. This Court vide order dated 17.12.2018 disposed of said
writ petition with following observations:
"Pursuant to order dated 13.12.2018, passed in
the other connected cases, A.S. Saran, Deputy Director
(Rice) Food and Supplies, Punjab is present in court. He
submits that the case of the petitioners is being
considered by the committee. A speaking order shall be
passed shortly, in any case not later than 26th
December, 2018.
In view of above, the petition is hereby disposed of.
Petitioners shall, however, be at liberty to impugn the
order, if aggrieved. In case, however, the committee finds
the miller eligible for allocation, the District
Administration shall take steps forthwith for shifting the
paddy, in any case not later than one week.
Disposed of."
4. The respondent formed a Committee of Senior Officers to look
into the matter. The Committee vide its report dated 24.12.2018 opined that
High Court has never directed the State to link Jodha Mandi with Sudhar
Milling Center and opinion of Food and Civil Supplies Officer is an
incorrect opinion. The petitioners herein assailed opinion of the Committee
3 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139724
CWP-23903-2023(O&M) -4- 2023:PHHC:139724
by way of CWP No.4628 of 2019 before this Court. The respondents herein
also preferred CWP No.8047 of 2019 before this Court. Both the petitions
came to be dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 24.07.2023.
5. The respondent-State, during the pendency of afore-stated writ
petitions, to resolve the issue made an interim arrangement and as per said
arrangement, the paddy was allocated to nearest mills either falling under
Sudhar Milling Centre or Kila Raipur Milling Centre. The respondent while
linking mandis with Milling Centers for KMS 2023-24 linked Jodha Mandi
with Kila Raipur Milling Centre. The petitioners assailing linking of Jodha
Mandi with Kila Raipur Milling Centre preferred CWP No.22567 of 2023
before this Court which came to be disposed of by way of direction to the
Director to look into the matter and pass an appropriate order. The
respondent-Director vide impugned order dated 15.10.2023 has passed
impugned order whereby linking of Jodha Mandi with Kila Raipur Milling
Centre has been justified. The operative portion of the impugned order reads
as:
"The perusal of the above clause reveals that mandies
should preferably linked to the rice mills within the same
milling center. The above clause further provides that
where the distance of a rice mill with a mandi of another
milling centre is lesser than such a mill shall be linked
with nearest mandi. However, such a mill shall be linked
to same milling centre unless the miller(s) at that milling
centre are ready to pay the cost of transportation. As per
the above clause of CMP. mandies are linked to rice
mills online automatically through software.
In the instant case, the petitioner mills falls in
Sudhar Milling Centre and the software has rightly
linked it with the mandies of Sudhar Milling Centre. The
Jodha Mandi lies in Kila Raipur Milling Cente and thus,
4 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139724
CWP-23903-2023(O&M) -5- 2023:PHHC:139724
it could not be linked with Sudhar Milling Centre by the
software. Further, the millers at the Kila Raipur milling
centre are ready to pay the transportation cost. It is
further observed that FSD is at Kila Raipur Centre and if
petitioner mills are attached to the mandies of Kila
Raipur, it will be backward movement of paddy from
Kila Raipur to Sudhar Centre and would cause extra
economic burden in form of transportation cost as the
resultant rice is again delivered to FSD Kila Raipur.
It is further observed that the centre cut at Kila
Raipur Centre is 50% whereas centre cut at Sudhar
Centre is 38% and if Jodha Mandi is linked with Sudhar
Milling Centre, the centre cut of Kila Raipur will
increase to 62% leaving rice mills to 38% of their
entitled paddy whereas, the centre cut at Sudhar centre
will decrease to 13% leading to enhanced entitlement of
of paddy to the rice mills of Sudhar Milling Centre As
such the linking of Jodha Mandi to Sudhar Milling
Centre will not equitably distribute the paddy rather it
would cause economic loss to the mills of Kila Raipur
Milling Centre which is against the spirit of the present
CMP 2023-24. Therefore, the Jodha mandi has rightly
been linked with the Kila Raipur milling centre.
6. In view of the above, I. Director Food Civil
Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Punjab, in view of the
ibid policy, is of the considered opinion that the claim of
the petitioners mill is devoid of merits and the same
deserves to be rejected.
6. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that
respondent has linked Jodha Mandi with Sudhar Milling Centre on the basis
of decision taken in 2017 which was under-challenge and respondent has
wrongly relied upon said letter dated 12.10.2017. Jodha Mandi was linked
with Sudhar Milling Centre since 2007. There was no basis to de-link said
5 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139724
CWP-23903-2023(O&M) -6- 2023:PHHC:139724
mandi from Sudhar Milling Centre and link it with Kila Raipur Milling
Centre. The policy candidly provides that every mill should be attached
with nearest mandi. The object of attaching a rice mill with the nearest
mandi is to minimize cost of transportation and make it convenient for all
the stakeholders. The distance between petitioner units from Jodha Mandi
is much less than distance between mills attached with Jodha Mandi which
are forming part of Kila Raipur Milling Centre. The distance between mills
of petitioner from Jodha Mandi is lesser than actually attached mandis, thus,
there would be higher cost of transportation which shall be borne by the
State of Punjab or Food Corporation of India. As per calculation chart of
the FCI, transportation cost is going to increase, however, FCI is wrongly
claiming that no difference in the cost would take place. In support of his
contention, he produced a calculation chart to indicate that there would be
higher cost of transportation to the extent of 11.56 lakhs if Jodha Mandi is
linked with Kila Raipur Milling Centre instead of Sudhar Milling Centre.
The said chart is taken on record. Mr. Mittal lastly submitted that in the
wake of different cost of transportation charts, Director may be asked to
look into this aspect.
7. On being asked about the scope of interference in
administrative matters, learned counsel cited judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2021, 2021(7) SCC 772.
He further submits that action of respondent amounts to violation of Articles
14, 19 (1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India because action of
respondent is going to substantially affect business of the petitioner, thus,
writ petition is maintainable.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that first and prime
6 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139724
CWP-23903-2023(O&M) -7- 2023:PHHC:139724
object of the policy is to make equitable distribution because milling
capacity of the rice mills in the State is more than available paddy. Most of
the milling Center are deficit in quantity. Resultantly, most of the mills are
getting lesser quantity than their installed capacity. The petitioner units
would get paddy more than 80% of their installed capacity if Jodha Mandi is
attached with Sudhar Milling Centre and private respondents would get 38%
of their installed capacity. If Jodha Mandi is attached with Kila Raipur
Milling Centre, the units falling within the jurisdiction of Kila Raipur
Milling Centre would get 51% of their installed capacity and units falling
within preview of Sudhar Milling Centre will get 57% of their installed
capacity. The mandi in question has been attached with Kila Raipur Milling
Centre in terms of letter dated 12.10.2017 and thereafter units have been
attached with mandi by the software. There is no human intervention with
respect to linking of rice mills with mandis.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent-FCI submits that linking of
Jodha Mandi with Sudhar Milling Centre or Kila Raipur Milling Centre
would not make substantial difference in total cost of transportation because
FCI has to take care of cost of transportation of movement of paddy as well
as rice. During the course of hearing, learned counsel produced a
calculation chart which is taken on record.
10. Learned counsel for private respondents during the course of
hearing produced documents filed before Director at the time of passing of
impugned order. The said documents are taken on record. Mr. Gupta
submits that petitioners are wrongly claiming that distance between units of
Sudhar Milling Centre is on the lower side than distance between units of
Kila Raipur Milling Centre from Jodha Mandi. The State has to look at
7 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139724
CWP-23903-2023(O&M) -8- 2023:PHHC:139724
distance between mandi and Milling Centre and not between mandi and rice
mill. The distance between Jodha Mandi and Sudhar Milling Centre is 13
kms whereas distance between Jodha Mandi and Kila Raipur Milling Centre
is 8 kms. The petitioner has submitted incorrect data with respect to cost of
transportation. The petitioner has calculated cost of transportation with
respect to units actually linked with Jodha Mandi. The software has linked
10 mills of Kila Raipur Milling Centre with Jodha Mandi and most of the
mandis are at more distance than mills which are falling within Kila Raipur
Milling Centre and are near to Jodha Mandi. The cost of transportation
should be compared with respect to rice mills which are falling within Kila
Raipur Milling Centre and are nearer to Jodha Mandi. The respondents
during the course of hearing submitted statement of cost of transportation to
indicate that if cost of transportation is calculated in true perspective, the
linking of Jodha Mandi with Kila Raipur Milling Centre would not increase
cost of transportation. The rice ultimately has to be stored in the godowns
of the FCI and there is no storage godown in Sudhar Milling Centre. It is
available at Kila Raipur, thus, movement of rice is bound to take place from
mills to Kila Raipur Milling Centre. The State is bound to make equitable
distribution of paddy and if Jodha Mandi is attached with petitioners, they
would get paddy 81% of their capacity and respondents would get 38% of
their capacity. There are 32 units in Kila Raipur Milling Centre whereas
there are 15 units in Sudhar Milling Centre. There are many mandis which
are falling under other Milling Centers but are close to petitioners but they
are not claiming linking of those mandis.
11. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
8 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139724
CWP-23903-2023(O&M) -9- 2023:PHHC:139724
12. The conceded position emerging from the record is that the
distance between Jodha Mandi and Kila Raipur Milling Centre is 8 kms
whereas distance between Jodha Mandi and Sudhar Milling Centre is 13
kms. Jodha Mandi prior to 2017 was linked with Sudhar Milling Centre and
in 2017, it was linked with Kila Raipur Milling Centre. Since 2017, dispute
is going on between both milling centers and State had made interim
arrangement whereby partial quantity was allocated to units of Kila Raipur
Milling Centre and partial to Sudhar Milling Centre. For KMS 2023-24,
Jodha Mandi has been linked with Kila Raipur Milling Centre. The distance
between different mills of Sudhar Milling Centre and Jodha Mandi is less
than mills of Kila Raipur Milling Centre which are actually attached with
Jodha Mandi. There are few mills of Kila Raipur Milling Centre which are
closed to Jodha Mandi than mills of Sudhar Milling Centre. There are 15
rice mills in Sudhar Milling Centre whereas there are 32 rice mills in Kila
Raipur Milling Centre. If Jodha Mandi is linked with Sudhar Milling
Centre, rice mills of said center would get 81% of installed capacity and rice
mills of Kila Raipur Milling Centre would get 38% of their installed
capacity. If Jodha Mandi is linked with Kila Raipur Milling Centre, rice
mills of Sudhar Milling Centre would get 57% of their installed capacity
and rice mills of Kila Raipur Milling Centre would get 51% of their
installed capacity.
13. Before delving into the issue involved, it would be appropriate
to look at the scope of interference by High Court in the administrative
decisions. The petitioners are not assailing custom milling policy whereas
they are assailing administrative decision which has been taken by
Executive in terms of the policy. It is settled proposition of law that there is
9 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139724
CWP-23903-2023(O&M) -10- 2023:PHHC:139724
no complete bar in interfering with administrative decision, however,
Constitutional Courts can interfere if there is patent illegality on the part of
Executive or decision is prima facie arbitrary or violative of fundamental
rights guaranteed by Constitution of India.
13.1 A three judge bench of Supreme Court in Manohar Lal
Sharma versus Narendra Damodardas Modi & Ors. 2019 (3) SCC 25
has adverted with scope of judicial review of administrative decisions. The
court has held:
7. Parameters of judicial review of administrative
decisions with regard to award of tenders and contracts
has really developed from the increased participation of
the State in commercial and economic activity. In
Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and Ors., (2007) 14
SCC 517 this Court, conscious of the limitations in
commercial transactions, confined its scrutiny to the
decision making process and on the parameters of
unreasonableness and mala fides. In fact, the Court held
that it was not to exercise the power of judicial review
even if a procedural error is committed to the prejudice
of the tenderer since private interests cannot be
protected while exercising such judicial review. The
award of contract, being essentially a commercial
transaction, has to be determined on the basis of
considerations that are relevant to such commercial
decisions, and this implies that terms subject to which
tenders are invited are not open to judicial scrutiny
unless it is found that the same have been tailor-made to
benefit any particular tenderer or a class of tenderers.
[See Maa Binda Express Carrier & Anr. v. North-East
Frontier Railway & Ors.(2014) 3 SCC 760]
8. Various Judicial pronouncements commencing from
Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651, all
10 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139724
CWP-23903-2023(O&M) -11- 2023:PHHC:139724
emphasise the aspect that scrutiny should be limited to
the Wednesbury Principle of Reasonableness and
absence of mala fides or favouritism.
9. We also cannot lose sight of the tender in issue. The
tender is not for construction of roads, bridges, etc. It is
a defence tender for procurement of aircrafts. The
parameter of scrutiny would give far more leeway to the
Government, keeping in mind the nature of the
procurement itself. This aspect was even emphasized in
Siemens Public Communication Networks Pvt. Ltd. &
Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2008) 16 SCC 215. The
triple ground on which such judicial scrutiny is
permissible has been consistently held to be "illegality",
"irrationality" and "procedural impropriety".
10. In Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd. v. Airports
Authority of India [Reliance Airport Developers (P)
Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India, (2006) 10 SCC 1] the
policy of privatisation of strategic national assets qua
two airports came under scrutiny. A reference was made
in the said case (at SCC p. 49, para 57) to the
commentary by Grahame Aldous and John Alder in their
book Applications for Judicial Review, Law and
Practice:
"57. ... 'There is a general presumption against ousting
the jurisdiction of the courts, so that statutory provisions
which purport to exclude judicial review are construed
restrictively. There are, however, certain areas of
governmental activity, national security being the
paradigm, which the courts regard themselves as
incompetent to investigate, beyond an initial decision as
to whether the Government's claim is bona fide. In this
kind of non-justiciable area judicial review is not entirely
excluded, but very limited. It has also been said that
powers conferred by the Royal Prerogative are
inherently unreviewable but since the speeches of the
11 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139724
CWP-23903-2023(O&M) -12- 2023:PHHC:139724
House of Lords in Council of Civil Service
Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [Council of Civil
Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, 1985 AC
374 : (1984) 3 WLR 1174 (HL)] this is doubtful. Lords
Diplock, Scaman and Roskili (sic.) [ To be read as
"Roskill".] appeared to agree that there is no general
distinction between powers, based upon whether their
source is statutory or prerogative but that judicial review
can be limited by the subject-matter of a particular
power, in that case national security. Many prerogative
powers are in fact concerned with sensitive, non-
justiciable areas, for example, foreign affairs, but some
are reviewable in principle, including the prerogatives
relating to the civil service where national security is not
involved. Another non-justiciable power is the Attorney
General's prerogative to decide whether to institute legal
proceedings on behalf of the public interest."
(emphasis supplied)
11. It is our considered opinion/view that the extent of
permissible judicial review in matters of contracts,
procurement, etc. would vary with the subject matter of
the contract and there cannot be any uniform standard
or depth of judicial review which could be understood as
an across the board principle to apply to all cases of
award of work or procurement of goods/material. The
scrutiny of the challenges before us, therefore, will have
to be made keeping in mind the confines of national
security, the subject of the procurement being crucial to
the nation's sovereignty.
13.2 A two judge bench of Supreme Court in Siemens
Aktiengeselischaft & S. Ltd. versus DMRC Ltd. 2014 (11) SCC 288 has
adverted with scope of judicial interference in government
contracts/tenders. The court has elucidated parameters and guidelines which
need to be considered while entertaining writ petition in such matters. The
12 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139724
CWP-23903-2023(O&M) -13- 2023:PHHC:139724
court has held:
18. Principles governing judicial review of administrative
decisions are now fairly well-settled by a long line of decisions
rendered by this Court, since the decision of this Court in
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of
India and Ors. (1979) 3 SCC 489 which is one of the earliest
cases in which this Court judicially reviewed the process of
allotment of contracts by an instrumentality of the State and
declared that such process was amenable to judicial review.
Several subsequent decisions followed and applied the law to
varied situations but among the latter decisions one that
reviewed the law on the subject comprehensively was delivered
by this Court in Tata Cellular case (supra) where this Court
once again reiterated that judicial review would apply even to
exercise of contractual powers by the Government and
Government instrumentalities in order to prevent arbitrariness
or favouritism. Having said that this Court noted the inherent
limitations in the exercise of that power and declared that the
State was free to protect its interest as the guardian of its
finances. This Court held that there could be no infringement of
Article 14 if the Government tried to get the best person or the
best quotation for the right to choose cannot be considered to
be an arbitrary power unless the power is exercised for any
collateral purpose. The scope of judicial review, observed this
Court, was confined to the following three distinct aspects:
(i) Whether there was any illegality in the decision which
would imply whether the decision making authority has
understood correctly the law that regulates his decision
making power and whether it has given effect to it;
(ii) Whether there was any irrationality in the decision
taken by the authority implying thereby whether the
decision is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or
accepted moral standards that no sensible person who
had applied his mind to the question to be decided could
have arrived at the same; and
13 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139724
CWP-23903-2023(O&M) -14- 2023:PHHC:139724
(iii) whether there was any procedural impropriety
committed by the decision making authority while
arriving at the decision.
19. The principles governing judicial review were then
formulated in the following words:
(i) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in
administrative action.
(ii) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely
reviews the manner in which the decision was made.
(iii) The court does not have the expertise to correct the
administrative decision. If a review of the administrative
decision is permitted it will be substituting its own
decision, without the necessary expertise which itself
may be fallible.
(iv) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open
to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in
the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to
accept the tender or award the contract is reached by
process of negotiations through several tiers. More often
than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by
experts.
(v) The Government must have freedom of contract. In
other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary
concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an
administrative sphere. However, the decision must not
only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle
of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out
above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected
by bias or actuated by mala fides.
(vi)Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative
burden on the administration and lead to increased and
unbudgeted expenditure.
13.3 In Union of India v. Harjeet Singh Sandhu, (2001) 5 SCC
593 at page 624, Supreme Court while adverting with scope of judicial
14 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139724
CWP-23903-2023(O&M) -15- 2023:PHHC:139724
review in administrative decisions, has held that if two views are possible,
court shall not interfere by substitution its opinion for the opinion of
authority. The court has held:
42. Exercise of power under Section 19 read with Rule
14 is open to judicial review on well-settled parameters
of administrative law governing judicial review of
administrative action such as when the exercise of power
is shown to have been vitiated by mala fides or is found
to be based wholly on extraneous and/or irrelevant
grounds or is found to be a clear case of colourable
exercise of/or abuse of power or what is sometimes
called fraud on power i.e. where the power is exercised
for achieving an oblique end. The truth or correctness or
the adequacy of the material available before the
authority exercising the power cannot be revalued or
weighed by the court while exercising power of judicial
review. Even if some of the material, on which the action
is taken is found to be irrelevant, the court would still not
interfere so long as there is some relevant material
available on which the action can be sustained. The
court would presume the validity of the exercise of power
but shall not hesitate to interfere if the invalidity or
unconstitutionality is clearly demonstrated. If two views
are possible, the court shall not interfere by substituting
its own satisfaction or opinion for the satisfaction or
opinion of the authority exercising the power.
14. From the above-cited judgments, it can be culled out that High
Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction can interfere with administrative
decision if Court finds that administrative decision is arbitrary or violative
of fundamental rights or is patently illegal.
In the light of judicial pronouncement, scope of judicial review
in the impugned administrative decision is very limited. From the pleadings
15 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139724
CWP-23903-2023(O&M) -16- 2023:PHHC:139724
and arguments of both sides, this court finds no violation of procedure,
arbitrariness on the part of executive and violation of fundamental rights of
the petitioner. Setting aside of impugned decision would amount to
substituting opinion of the authorities which is impermissible as per settled
proposition of law, thus, writ petition may be outrightly dismissed.
However, noticing the fact that on earlier occasions, both sides have
approached this court and interim orders have been passed as well to rest the
litigation which is ensuing since 2017, this court ventures to look at
mandate of the policy and status of contesting parties.
15. Clauses 10 and 11 of CMP 2023-24 deal with allocation of
paddy to eligible rice mills. As per these Clauses, paddy has to be allocated
subject to availability with the Milling Center and authorities are not
supposed to arrange shortfall from other Milling Centers. There is no vested
or legal right in favour of rice mills to get paddy. The basic principle of
linking rice mills with mandis is equitable distribution and minimum
transportation cost. The relevant extracts of the policy read as :
10. ALLOCATION OF PADDY TO ELIGIBLE RICE
MILL(S):
a. General
i. Allotment of a mill and allocation of paddy is at
the sole discretion of DAC; a miller cannot claim
this as a matter of right.
ii. As paddy is to be allocated to the miller subject
to its availability with the procurement agencies at
that particular milling center, the shortfall, if any,
will not be arranged from other milling centers or
districts as a matter of right and this portion shall
be deemed to have lapsed and the miller shall have
no claim against it.
(iii) to (v) X X X
16 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139724
CWP-23903-2023(O&M) -17- 2023:PHHC:139724
b and c X X X
d. No vested/legal right: It is made categorically clear
that in applying the mechanism o allocation of paddy
under this Clause:
i. The quantity of paddy that may be allocated to a
given miller represents the maximum permissible
allocable quantity of paddy to such miller. The
above Clauses are merely an arithmetical aid to
such determination of such maximum permissible
allocable quantity of paddy, to such miller, and do
not confer any right to a miller for allocation of
such or any other quantity of paddy.
ii. Such maximum permissible allocable quantity of
paddy, not being a vested and/or other legal right
in the miller, may be decreased on pro-rata basis
if the arrival of paddy at the concerned milling
center is not sufficient. The paddy shall be
allocated to all the eligible rice mills in a milling
center in proportion to the availability of paddy at
the milling center concerned and proportionate
cut, if any, will be imposed on the maximum
permissible allocable quantity of paddy, on all the
rice mills in that paddy deficit milling center.
iii. In no case, paddy in excess of maximum
permissible allocable quantity of paddy,(as per
above clauses) shall be allocated to any of the
mill, even if there is an excess arrival of paddy at
that milling center.
iv. No miller can claim allocation of paddy from
any particular mandi. It is the prerogative of the
Department to decide as to which mandi is to be
linked with a mill, keeping in view the equitable
distribution and minimal transportation cost.
11. LINKING OF MANDI(S) AND RICE MILLS:
a. While linking the allotted rice mills and mandies, the
17 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139724
CWP-23903-2023(O&M) -18- 2023:PHHC:139724
equitable distribution and minimal transportation cost of
paddy shall be endeavored. Mandies shall be linked with
the nearest milling center/storage center keeping in view
the availability of milling capacity at the milling/storage
center(s) at which paddy is proposed to be stored/milled.
b. Mandies should preferably be linked with the rice
mills stated within the, same milling center.
From the perusal of above-quoted clauses, it can be gleaned
that allocation of paddy is not a vested or legal right of a miller. Every mill
is attached with a Milling Center and every Milling Center is a cluster of
mandis. No miller can claim allocation of paddy from a particular mandi. It
is prerogative of the department to decide as to which mandi is to be linked
with a mill. The basic principle of linking a mandi with rice mill is
equitable distribution and minimum cost of transportation. Clause 11(a) of
the policy mandates that mandis shall be linked with the nearest milling
Center/storage Center keeping in view the availability of milling capacity at
the milling/storage Center. The expression Milling Centre has been defined
under Clause 2(x) of the policy which is reproduced as below:
x. "Milling Centre" means a definite area within a
district for the purpose of linking of the mandies with
mills under this policy, and where procurement/storage/
milling operations are carried out and the staff of the
procurement agencies is posted.
From the perusal of above-quoted definition, it is evident that
Milling Centre is a definite area within a District for the purpose of linking
of the mandis with mills under the policy. From the conjoint reading of
Clauses 2(x) and 11(a) of the policy, it comes out that firstly mandis are
linked with nearest Milling Centre and thereafter mills are linked with
mandis. Mandis are linked with nearest Milling Centre keeping in view
18 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139724
CWP-23903-2023(O&M) -19- 2023:PHHC:139724
availability of milling capacity at the milling/storage center and mills are
linked with mandis considering equitable distribution and minimum cost of
transportation. Mandis are further preferably linked with rice mills situated
within the same milling centre.
16. In the case in hand, no rice mill is linked with a mandi which is
falling outside the milling center. The dispute is confined to linking of a
particular mandi with a milling center. The decision of linking a mandi with
a Milling Center is a pure administrative decision. This Court may examine
whether respondent has linked Jodha Mandi with Kila Raipur Milling
Centre with a mala fide intention or in an arbitrary manner or against the
policy.
The foremost requirement to link mandi with Milling Center is
that mandi should be linked with a nearest milling center, keeping in view
availability of milling capacity. There are 32 mills within Kila Raipur
Milling Centre whereas there are 15 rice mills within Sudhar Milling
Centre. The milling capacity of Kila Raipur Milling Centre is certainly
more than milling capacity of Sudhar Milling Centre. The mandi in
question has been linked with Kila Raipur Milling Centre and distance
between Kila Raipur Milling Centre and Jodha mandi is 8 kms whereas
distance between Jodha mandi and Sudhar Milling Centre is 13 kms. It
means Jodha Mandi has been linked with a nearest centre and indubitably
Kila Raipur Milling Centre is having sufficient milling capacity which is
evident from the fact that despite linking Jodha Mandi with Kila Raipur
Milling Centre, the rice mills are going to get paddy to the extent of 51% of
their installed capacity.
The Kila Raipur Milling Centre is nearer to Jodha Mandi than
19 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139724
CWP-23903-2023(O&M) -20- 2023:PHHC:139724
to Sudhar Milling Centre and Kila Raipur Milling Centre is having more
milling capacity than Sudhar Milling Centre, thus, this Court does not find
any illegality or arbitrariness on the part of respondent warranting
interference, invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of
India.
There is another nuance of the matter which needs to be
examined. The basic principle governing the allocation of paddy to rice
mills is equitable distribution. It is undisputed fact that if Jodha Mandi is
linked with Sudhar Milling Centre, rice mills of Sudhar Milling Centre
would get 81% of their installed capacity and mills of Kila Raipur Milling
Centre would get 38% of their installed capacity. In case of vice-versa, rice
mills of Sudhar Milling Centre would get 57% of their installed capacity
and rice mills of Kila Raipur Milling Centre 51% of their installed capacity.
Thus, linking of Jodha Mandi with Sudhar Milling Centre would be
contrary to basic principle of equitable distribution.
17. Applying the principles laid down by afore-cited judgments of
Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court finds that impugned administrative
decision of linking Jodha Mandi with Kila Raipur Milling Centre is neither
arbitrary nor violative of policy, warranting interference of this court in
exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
18. In the wake of above findings and conclusion, it is not
necessary to consider question of cost of transportation, however, in view of
prayer of the petitioners, question of cost of transportation is adverted with.
The petitioners have vehemently pleaded that linking of Jodha Mandi with
Kila Raipur Milling Centre would increase cost of transportation and state is
20 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139724
CWP-23903-2023(O&M) -21- 2023:PHHC:139724
bound to consider cost of transportation while linking mills with mandis.
The private respondents as well as FCI and State of Punjab have pleaded
that linking of Jodha Mandi with Kila Raipur Milling Centre would not
increase cost of transportation because godowns of FCI are located at Kila
Raipur, thus, cost of transportation of rice from Kila Raipur Mills is much
less than cost of transportation from mills of Sudhar Milling Centre. Both
the parties have submitted contradictory calculation charts. This Court
cannot decide disputed question of cost of transportation. FCI and State
have to bear cost of transportation. There is cost of transportation of paddy
from mandi to rice mills and rice from mill to godown of FCI. The cost of
transportation is one of the factors which needs to be considered while
linking mills with mandis.
In the wake of figures of cost of transportation submitted by
both the sides which are contradictory to each other, the respondents are
asked to look into the matter and find out actual position before taking any
decision, in future, with respect to linking of Mandi in question with a
milling center.
19. The petition stands disposed of in above terms.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
02.11.2023 JUDGE
anju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:139724
21 of 21
