Sri Keshavarao Cheedella vs The State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 3341 Tel

Telangana High Court

Sri Keshavarao Cheedella vs The State Of Telangana on 28 August, 2024

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

      WRIT PETITION Nos.17985, 17993 AND 18357 OF 2024

COMMON ORDER:

Heard Mr. R.N. Hemendranath Reddy, learned Senior Counsel

representing Mr. Sannapaneni Lohit, learned counsel for the petitioners

in W.P. No.18357 of 2024, Mr. Pasham Mohith, learned counsel for the

petitioners in W.P. Nos.17985 and 17993 of 2024, Mr. A. Jagan, learned

Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and Mr. T.P. Acharya, learned

Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation

Limited (TSCSCL).

2. These writ petitions challenge the initiation of proceedings

under the Telangana Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (hereinafter referred

to as 'R.R. Act'). The allegation of the petitioners is that the respondents

issued impugned notices without following procedure laid down under

the R.R. Act. Therefore, there is no need to delve into the facts of the

case in detail.

3. However, brief facts in W.P. No.18357 of 2024 are as follows:

i) Petitioner Nos.9 and 10 are Partnership Firms. Family

Members of some of the petitioners have floated petitioner Nos.9 and 10

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

firms with an object and purpose of carrying business of manufacturing

and selling of rice, its allied products, co-products and by-products from

the activity of parboiling, steam boiling and milling of paddy. The said

firms have been procuring paddy from the farmers, effectively milling

the procured paddy to ensure high quality rice and selling the resultant

rice in the market and paddy exporters.

ii) The Telangana Government has announced its Paddy

Procurement Policy in the year 2015. As per the said Policy and the

Government Orders (GOs) issued by the State Government, Rice Millers

have to purchase paddy from farmers at a Minimum Support Price

(MSP) predetermined by the State Government and has to deliver 75%

of the rice milled as levy to the Food Corporation of India (FCI), and the

State Civil Supplies Corporation at a predetermined price. The rice

millers were entitled to sell and move the remaining 25% levy free rice

within and outside the State and also export the rice as per the then

prevailing orders of the State Government from time to time. It was

called Levy System which was abolished by the Central Government in

2015 and was duly followed by the State Governments.

iii) The newly formed State of Telangana traded the levy system

for the custom milling system in order to provide more support to the

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

farmers. The FCI was replaced by the Telangana State Civil Supplies

Corporation Limited (TSCSCL), respondent No.4 in W.P. Nos.17985

and 17993 of 2024 and respondent No.3 in W.P. No.18357 of 2024.

Under the said custom milling system, the State directly purchases paddy

from the farmers through different procurement centers at Village or

Mandal levels and distributes the paddy to rice millers for custom

milling. The rice millers mill the paddy and supply to the State and

receive predetermined custom milling charges.

iv) Vide G.O.Ms.No.18, CA, F&CS (CS.I-CCS), dated

30.10.2015, the Government of Telangana has issued Telangana Rice

(Custom Milling) Order, 2015 (for short 'Order, 2015'), which makes it

mandatory for all rice millers to whom paddy is delivered by the

TSCSCL or its Agencies for custom milling of paddy and deliver rice on

such terms and conditions stipulated from time to time by the State

Government. The new policy coupled with increase in MSP of paddy,

policy support in the form of farmers' input incentives and

improvements in irrigation led to drastic increase in the production of

paddy across the State of Telangana. Thereafter, petitioner Nos.9 and 10

firms entered into custom milling agreement with TSCSCL for each

milling season on the specific terms and conditions mentioned therein.

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

v) It is further contended by the petitioners that Rabi 2022-23 and

Kharif 2023-24 have presented a unique set of challenges to the rice

millers across the entire State. Due to torrential rains in 2022-23, most

of the paddy crop across the State was damaged. As per the Policy,

purchase of those Non-Fair Average Quality (Non-FAQ) paddy in large

quantities and transported them to the millers for custom milling.

Petitioner Nos.9 and 10 mills were allotted paddy stocks of three (03)

times their milling capacity in Rabi 2022-23. They have represented the

TSCSCL about their inability to stock/store the already drenched paddy

in their mill premises. Even then, they were forced by TSCSCL to

unload all the paddy trucks sent by PPCs. On war footing and the stocks

overlapped with already stored stocks of paddy from previous seasons

that were yet to be milled. They were forced to keep the paddy stocks

outside and the same was deteriorated due to heavy rains. The TSCSCL

has not paid custom milling charges, transportation charges etc., for last

several seasons promptly leading to arrears running into Crores of

Rupees.

vi) Respondent No.4 - District Collector, Suryapet, has

constituted teams to conduct inspections at the defaulted millers, who

failed to deliver custom milled rice within the stipulated time and such

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

inspections have been carried out at petitioner Nos.9 and 10 mills

premises. During the said inspections, it was alleged by the Authorities

that there is variation in quantity of paddy of 27,458.625 Metric Tons for

the Rabi 2022-23 Season and variation in quantity of paddy of 7,542.675

Metric Tons for the Kharif 2023-24 Season, which is a total quantity of

35,001.300 Metric Tons of paddy amounting to Rs.77.10 Crores for both

the seasons in respect of petitioner No.10 plus there is variation in

quantity of paddy of 24,974.919 Metric Tons for the Rabi 2022-23

Season and variation in quantity of paddy of 16,390.447 Metric Tons for

the Kharif 2023-24 Season, which is a total quantity of 41,365.366 Metri

Tons of paddy amounting to Rs.91.13 Crores for both the seasons in

respect of petitioner No.9 firm.

vii) The State's pool of paddy which was allotted to petitioner

Nos.9 and 10 mills for Rabi 2022-23 Season was already placed under

auction by the TSCSCL vide e-tender Notification dated 25.01.2024, and

the same was sold on 'as is where is basis'. Sale Certificate dated

23.02.2024 was issued in favour of M/s. National Federation of Farmers

Procurement Processing and Retailing Cooperative of India Limited. As

per the proceedings, dated 05.03.2024 of respondent No.1, mill-wise

quantity of paddy finalized through tenders and allotted successful

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

bidders should not be delivered as CMR. The last date for delivery of

the CMR is 30.09.2024 as far as paddy allotted for the Kharif 2023-24,

as per the G.O.Ms. No.26, dated 07.10.2023. Therefore, there is no

default/failure on the part of petitioner Nos.9 and 10 mills in delivering

custom milled rice in respect of the paddy allotted for the Kharif 2023-

24 Season.

viii) Respondent No.1 has been extending the date of delivery of

custom milled rice by the rice millers across the State for the Season of

Rabi 2019-20, Kharif 2021-22 and Kharif 2022-23 from time to time,

and vide G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 27.06.2024, the same was extended by 90

days from 27.06.2024, which is set to expire by 30.09.2024. Therefore,

there is no default/failure on the part of petitioner Nos.9 and 10 with

regard to delivery of custom milled rice or variation in quantity of paddy

at their premises.

ix) Even then, respondent authorities have registered criminal

cases against petitioner Nos.9 and 10, its partners, also seized paddy,

attached the accounts of the petitioners and initiated proceedings under

R.R. Act. They have filed petitions under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. and

also writ petitions challenging said seizures and the same are pending,

and this Court has granted interim orders.

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

x) The respondent authorities have attached the properties of the

petitioners in exercise of their powers under R.R. Act without following

due procedure laid down under law. They are taking steps to bring the

properties of the petitioners for sale. Notice of attachment under

Sections - 25 and 27 of R.R. Act attaching all the properties of

petitioners is illegal and without following due procedure laid down

under the R.R. Act. There is no determination of amount. There is an

Arbitration Clause in the agreement. Therefore, they cannot initiate

procedure laid down under the R.R. Act.

xi) In Form Nos.4 and 5 i.e., demand prior to attachment of land

(Under Section - 25) and notice of attachment (Under Section - 27) and

also the distraint order, the details of properties were not mentioned.

Therefore, the said notices are defective.

W.P. Nos.17993 AND 17985 OF 2024:

4. M/s. Sri Venkateshwara Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd., petitioner

No.1 in W.P. No.17993 of 2024, is a Company registered under the

Companies Act, 2013, while petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are its Managing

Director and Director, whereas the petitioners in W.P. No.17985 of 2024

are shareholders of the said Rice Mill.

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

i) The petitioners further contended that respondent No.4 -

TSCSCL had allotted 23325.84 Metric Tons of paddy for the Kharif

Season 2022-23 in a belated manner. There was inordinate delay in the

allotment of paddy by TSCSCL. They have allocated paddy of 15535.52

Metric Tons for 2022-23 Rabi Season and 4102.64 Metric Tons for

2023-24 Kharif Season to petitioner No.1 Mill belatedly. Petitioner No.1

has submitted a representation dated 08.05.2023 to the respondents about

the said inordinate delay. It has also submitted multiple representations

on the said aspects. Even then, on the complaint lodged by respondent

No.3, FIR was registered against the petitioners. They have filed a

petition under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the said proceedings in

the said FIR.

ii) The State Government auctioned the paddy to third parties and

issued lifting orders without accounting for expenses incurred by various

rice millers including petitioner No.1 herein. Therefore, certain rice

mills have filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.6564 of 2024 seeking

reimbursement of expenses incurred for safely storing paddy and the said

writ petition is pending.

iii) It is further contended that though petitioner No.1

Company/Mill entered into an agreement with TSCSCL, they have not

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

furnished copies of the said agreements. They have not even furnished

copy of the same on the application submitted by petitioner No.1 under

Right to Information Act, 2005, on the ground that investigation is

pending.

iv) Respondent No.9 has served distraint order No. D/446/2024,

dated 27.05.2024 upon the petitioners initiating proceedings under

Section - 8 of the R.R. Act in attaching and conducting sale of the

properties belonging to the petitioners mentioning the total arrears to a

tune of Rs.64,09,39,079/- along with interest. It was alleged that the

same was on account of default of petitioner No.1 in delivering 2903.921

Metric Tons of CMR rice for Khariff 2022-23, Rabhi 2022-23 and

Khariff 2023-24. The details are not mentioned in the said destraint

order and it is defective one. A writ petition vide W.P. No.16167 of

2024 is filed challenging the said destraint order. Thereafter, the same

was withdrawn in view of issuance of demand prior to attachment dated

12.06.2024 in Form No.4 and notice of attachment, dated 27.06.2024.

The same were issued in violation of the procedure laid down under the

R.R. Act. The said notices are defective since the same were issued

without determination of amount. Thus, the said notices are illegal apart

from defective. The procedure laid down under the R.R. Act was not

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

followed. The petitioners in W.P. No.17985 of 2024 are only

shareholders and are liable to pay to the extent of their share value.

Therefore, without considering the said legal aspects, the respondents

issued the aforesaid destraint order in Form No.1 under Section - 8 of the

R.R. Act; Form No.4 - demand prior to attachment of land under

Section -25 of the R.R. Act and Form No.5 - Notice of attachment under

Section - 27 of the R.R. Act. Therefore, the said action of the

respondents is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of procedure laid down

under the R.R. Act.

5. The District Collector has filed counter contending as follows:

i) It is Civil Supply Officer i.e., respondent No.6 in W.P.

No.18357 of 2024, who submitted a report before the

District Collector against the Rice Millers including

petitioner No.1 in W.P. No.17993 of 2024 and petitioner

Nos.9 and 10 in W.P. No.18357 of 2024 stating that the

Millers are not delivering Custom Milling Rice (CMR) for

the paddy received during 'Vanakalam' i.e., Kharif 2022-

23, Yasangi i.e., Rabi 2022-23 and Kharif 2023-24. The

Authority conducted inspection and found shortages of

paddy.

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

ii) As per the report submitted by the District Manager, Civil

Supply (DMCS), the aforesaid mills neither delivered CMR

to the Government, nor did they have paddy stock in their

rice mills. They have diverted CMR paddy to black market.

Therefore, show-cause notices were issued, explanations

were called for as per the procedure laid down in the

Agreements and also Clauses of the Order, 2015, issued

vide G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 30.10.2015. Criminal Cases were

also registered against them.

iii) During inspection conducted under cover of panchanama

found shortfall of huge quantity of rice. DMCS also found

transportation of 89 Lorries of CMR to Kakinada Port

between the period from 20.04.2024 to 27.05.2024 by

petitioner Nos.9 and 10 in W.P. No.18357 of 2024. Thus,

they have diverted CMR paddy for their illegal gain and,

thus, they have misappropriated paddy amount of

Rs.89,07,95,166/- as per paddy MSP. Therefore, they have

contravened Clauses - 4, 7 and 9 of the said Order, 2015.

Notices including final notice dated 16.05.2024 were issued.

Thereafter, show-cause notices were also issued and on

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

calling for explanation only, the respondents' authority have

issued destraint order, demand prior to attachment of land

and notice of attachment strictly in accordance with law,

and there is no error in it.

iv) There are serious allegations against the petitioners. They

have misappropriated paddy amount. Therefore, the

respondents have initiated auction the said mills for

recovery of the said amount strictly in accordance with law

and there is no error in it.

6. Mr. R.N. Hemendranath Reddy, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the petitioners in W.P. No.18357 of 2024, Mr. Pasham

Mohith, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. Nos.17985 and

17993 of 2024 and Mr. A. Jagan, learned Government Pleader for Civil

Supplies made their submissions extensively.

7. The petitioners in all the said writ petitions challenged the

destraint order, demand prior to attachment in Form No.4 and notice of

attachment in Form No.5 on the following grounds:

i. Amounts sought to be recovered by the respondents are disputed

and they have not crystallized. Therefore, initiation of proceedings

under the R.R. Act without determination of the amount is illegal

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

and violation of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in State of Karnataka v. Shree Rameshwara Rice Mills 1;

Shriram Engineering Constructions Company Limited v.

Kerala State Industrial Development 2 and Taherunnisa Begum

v. District Collector, Cuddapah District 3.

ii. Proceedings under the R.R. Act cannot be resorted when there

exists an arbitration clause in the subject agreement. Reliance was

placed on the principle laid down in Sanjay Kumar v. The

Managing Director, BSFCSC 4 and Arvind Kumar v. State of

Bihar 5.

iii. Company is a separate Juristic entity whose liability cannot be

fastened on the Shareholders/Directors. Reliance was placed on

the decisions in R.K. Chaddha v. State of U.P. 6 and

Chamundeeswari v. The Commercial Tax Officer7.

iv. Property of third parties, who are not revenue defaulters, cannot be

attached. Reliance was placed on Taherunnisa Begum3.

v. There is procedural violation as contemplated under the R.R. Act.

. (1987) 2 SCC 160

. 2007 SCC OnLine Ker. 196

. 2007 SCC OnLine AP 527

. 2020 SCC OnLine Pat.924

. 2014 SCC OnLine Pat. 1495

. 2014 SCC OnLine All.6248

. 2007 (2) CTC 149

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

vi. Destraint order in Form No.1 is defective since details of movable

and immovable properties to be attached were not mentioned.

vii. Properties of the petitioners cannot be placed in the list of

prohibited properties and the same is in violation of procedure laid

down under the R.R. Act, including Section - 22A of the

Registration Act, 1908. Reliance was placed on the principle laid

down by this Court vide order dated 25.03.2022 in W.P. No.16787

of 2021 and batch.

viii. Petitioner Nos.6 to 8 in W.P. No.18357 of 2024 are not partners of

petitioner Nos.9 and 10 Mills therein. Therefore, recovery

proceedings initiated against them are illegal.

ix. Notice to petitioner No.1 i.e., M/s. Sri Venkateshwara Rice

Industries Pvt. Ltd. in W.P. No.17993 of 2024 was not served.

x. No show-cause notice was issued to petitioner No.1 in W.P.

No.17993 of 2024. The proceedings initiated by the respondents

under the R.R. Act are contrary to the Order, 2015. Time extended

up to 30.09.2024 for delivery of CMR and, therefore, the

respondents cannot initiate proceedings under R.R. Act.

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

xi. Rice was sold in respect of Rabi 2022-23 as is where is basis by

issuing e-tender notice dated 25.01.2024 and sale certificates were

also issued on 23.02.2024 to the successful bidder.

xii. The Government is due and liable to pay huge amount towards

milling charges and transport charges. Reliance was placed on the

principle laid down by the Apex Court in S.K. Bhargava v. The

Collector, Chandigarh8, Shree Rameshwara Rice Mills1 and

Shriram Engineering Construction Company Limited2.

8. Whereas, Mr. A. Jagan, learned Government Pleader for Civil

Supplies, contended that the petitioners' mills have diverted the paddy to

black market. They have misappropriated huge extent of paddy and,

therefore, show-cause notices were issued to the petitioners' mills, and

on calling for explanation only, impugned destraint order, demand prior

to attachment of land and notice of attachment were issued. Criminal

cases were also initiated against them. There is huge shortfall in rice

quantity. Shareholders and Directors are also responsible for the same.

Therefore, the respondents have issued the said notices by following

procedure laid down under the R.R. Act. There is no error in it.

. (1998) 5 SCC 170

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:

9. SCHEME OF THE R.R. ACT:

i) In the light of the aforesaid rival submissions, it is relevant to

note the Scheme of the Telangana Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. The

R.R. Act was brought in for the purpose of consolidating the Law for the

Recovery of Arrears of Revenue in the State of Telangana.

ii) Section - 4 of the R.R. Act deals with arrears of revenue, and it

says when the whole or portion of a kist shall not be so paid, the amount

of the kist or of its unpaid portion shall be deemed to be an arrear of

revenue.

iii) Section- 5 of the R.R. Act deals with arrears of revenue how

recovered, and it says that whenever revenue may be in arrear, it shall be

lawful for the Collector, or other officer empowered by the Collector in

that behalf, to proceed to recover the arrear, together with interest and

costs of process, by the sale of the defaulter's movable and immovable

property, or by execution against the person of the defaulter in manner

hereinafter provided.

iv) Section - 7 deals with interest on arrears, and it says that

arrears of revenue shall bear interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

v) Section - 8 deals with rules for seizure and sale of movable

property, and it says that in the seizure and sale of movable property for

arrears of revenue, the following rules shall be observed:- First.- The

Collector, or other officer empowered by the Collector in that behalf,

shall furnish to the person employed to distraint the property of a

defaulter, a demand in writing and signed with his name, specifying the

name of the defaulter, the amount of the arrear for which the distress

may be issued, and the date on which the arrear fell due. The person

employed to distraint shall produce the writing which, if the arrear

together with the batta due to him, under Section - 53, be not at once

paid, shall be his authority for making the distress, and on the day on

which the property may be distrained, shall deliver a copy of such

writing to the defaulter, endorsing thereon a list or inventory of the

property distrained, and the name of the place where it may be lodged or

kept. Second.- The writing shall further set forth that the distrained

property will be immediately brought to public sale unless the amount,

with interest, batta, and all the expenses of the distress, be previously

discharged. Third.- When a defaulter may be absent, a copy of the

writing, with the endorsement, shall be fixed or left at his usual place of

residence, or on the premises where the property may have been

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

distrained, before the expiration of the third day, calculating from the

day of the distress.

vi) Section - 9 deals with procedure when defaulter neglects to pay

after notice and it says that when the amount due shall not have been

paid pursuant to the terms of the demand, and no arrangement for

securing the same shall have been entered into to the satisfaction of the

Collector or other officer empowered by the Collector in that behalf, the

distrainer shall transmit an inventory of the property distrained to the

nearest public officer empowered to sell distrained property, under Act

VII of 18391, in order that it may be publicly sold for the discharge of

the arrear due, with interest, batta, and cost of distraint.

vii) Section - 22 deals with proclamation of time of sale and of

property to be sold and it says that the public officer, empowered under

Act VII of 18391 to sell distrained property, shall cause to be affixed to

the outer door of the defaulter's house, or on the premises where the

property may have been distrained, a list of the property to be sold, with

a notice specifying the place where, and the day and hour at which the

distrained property will be sold and shall cause proclamation of the

intended sale to be made by beat of drum in the village to which the

lands on which the arrear has accrued may belong, and in such place or

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

places as the Collector, or other officer empowered by the Collector in

that behalf, may consider necessary to give due publicity to the sale. No

sale shall take place until after the expiration of a period of fifteen days

from the date on which the notice may be so affixed.

viii) Section - 23 deals with sale how conducted and it says that at

the appointed time, the property shall be put up in one or more lots, as

the said officer may consider advisable, and shall be disposed of to the

highest bidder. Where the property may sell for more than the amount of

the arrear, the over plus after deducting expenses of process and interest,

shall be paid to the defaulter.

ix) Section - 25 deals with demand to be served prior to

attachment of land, and it says that before a Collector, or other officer

empowered by the Collector in that behalf, proceeds to attach the land of

the defaulter, or buildings thereon, he shall cause a written demand to be

served upon the defaulter, specifying the amount due, the estate or land

in respect of which it is claimed, the name of the party in arrear, the batta

due to the person who shall serve the demand, and the time allowed for

payment, which shall be fixed with reference to the distance from the

land on which the arrear is due to the place at which the money is to be

paid. Such demand shall be served by delivering a copy to the defaulter,

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

or to some adult male member of his family at his usual place of abode,

or to his authorized agent, or by affixing a copy thereof on some

conspicuous part of his last known residence, or on some conspicuous

part of the land about to be attached.

x) Section - 26 deals with procedure when defaulter neglects to

pay, and it says that when the amount due shall not have been paid

pursuant to the terms of the demand, and no arrangement for securing the

same shall have been entered into to the satisfaction of the Collector or

other officer empowered by the Collector in that behalf, he shall proceed

to recover the arrear by the attachment and sale of the defaulter's land in

the following manner.

xi) Section - 27 deals with mode of attachment, and it says that

the attachment shall be effected by affixing a notice thereof to some

conspicuous part of the land. The notice shall set forth that unless the

arrear, with interest and expenses, be paid within the date therein

mentioned, the land will be brought to sale in due course of law. The

attachment shall be notified by public proclamation on the land, and by

publication of the notice in the District Gazette.

xii) Section - 36 deals with procedure in sale of immovable

property, and it says that in the sale of immovable property under this

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

Act the following rules shall be observed:- First.- The sale shall be by

public auction to the highest bidder. The time and place of sale shall be

fixed by the Collector of the district in which the property is situated, or

other officer empowered by the Collector in that behalf. The time may be

either previous to or after the expiration of the fasli year. Second.-

Previous to the sale the Collector, or other officer empowered by the

Collector in that behalf, shall issue a notice thereof in English and in the

language of the district, specifying the name of the defaulter; the position

and extent of land and of his buildings thereon; the amount of revenue

assessed on the land, or upon its different sections; the proportion of the

public revenue due during the remainder of the current fasli; and the

time, place, and conditions of sale. This notice shall be fixed up one

month at least before the sale in the Collector's office and in the Taluk

Cutcherry, in the nearest police station-house, and on some conspicuous

part of the land. Third.-A sum of money equal to fifteen per cent of the

price of the land shall be deposited by the purchaser in the hands of the

Collector, or other officer empowered by the Collector in that behalf, at

the time of the purchase, and where the remainder of the purchase-

money may not be paid within thirty days, the money so deposited shall

be liable to forfeiture. Fourth.-Where the purchaser may refuse or omit

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

to deposit the said sum of money, or to complete the payment of the

remaining purchase-money, the property shall be resold at the expense

and hazard of such purchaser, and the amount of all loss or expense

which may attend such refusal or omission shall be recoverable from

such purchaser in the same manner as arrears of public revenue. Where

the lands may, on the second sale, sell for a higher price than at the first

sale, the difference or increase shall be the property of him on whose

account the said first sale was made. Fifth.- All persons bidding at a

sale may be required to state whether they are bidding on their own

behalf or as agents, and, in the latter case, to deposit a written authority

signed by their principals. If such requisition be not complied with, their

bids may be rejected.

xiii) Section - 37-A deals with application to set aside sale of

immovable property on deposit. Section - 38 deals with application to

set aside sale. Section - 39 deals with proclamation of sale. Section - 40

deals with delivery of possession. Section - 44 deals with sale of land

for arrears. Section - 48 deals with power of arrest in case of willful or

fraudulent non-payment of arrears-period of imprisonment etc. Section -

57-A deals with revision.

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

10. Distraint order issued under Section - 8 of the R.R. Act in

Form No.1 as per Appendix - II (Standing Order No.41, Paragraph 25) is

relevant and the same is extracted as under:

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

11. Like-wise, demand prior to attachment of land issued under

Section - 25 of the R.R. Act in Form No.4 is also relevant and the same

is extracted below.

12. Similarly, notice of attachment issued under Section - 27 of

the R.R. Act in Form No.5 is also relevant and the same is extracted

below:

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

13. The aforesaid Forms would reveal that the respondents shall

mention all the details in Form No.1 - distraint order. Perusal of the said

distraint order issued under Section - 8 of the R.R. Act in Form No.1

dated 27.05.2024 in respect of the petitioners in W.P. No.17993 of 2024

and 17985 of 2024 would reveal that the same lacks all the requisite

details. It is a defective notice. Therefore, subsequent proceedings are

also liable to be set aside.

14. In Shree Rameshwara Rice Mills1, the Apex Court

categorically held that without determination of amount, any initiation of

recovery of arrears under R.R. Act is impermissible. Paragraph Nos.7

and 8 are relevant and the same are extracted as under:

"7. On a consideration of the matter we find ourselves unable to accept the contentions of Mr Iyenger. The terms of clause 12 do not afford scope for a liberal construction being made regarding the powers of the Deputy Commissioner to adjudicate upon a disputed question of breach as well as to assess the damages arising from the breach. The crucial words in clause 12 are "and for any breach of conditions set forth hereinbefore, the first party shall be liable to pay damages to the second party as may

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

be assessed by the second party". On a plain reading of the words it is clear that the right of the second party to assess damages would arise only if the breach of conditions is admitted or if no issue is made of it. If is was the intention of the parties that the officer acting on behalf of the State was also entitled to adjudicate upon a dispute regarding the breach of conditions the wording of clause 12 would have been entirely different. It cannot also be argued that a right to adjudicate upon an issue relating to a breach of conditions of the contract would flow from or is inhered in the right conferred to assess the damages arising from a breach of conditions. The power to assess damages, as pointed out by the Full Bench, is a subsidiary and consequential power and not the primary power. Even assuming for argument's sake that the terms of clause 12 afford scope for being construed as empowering the officer of the State to decide upon the question of breach as well as assess the quantum of damages, we do not think that adjudication by the officer regarding the breach of the contract can be sustained under law because a party to the agreement cannot be an arbiter in his own cause. Interests of justice and equity require that where a party to a contract disputes the committing of any breach of conditions the adjudication should be by an independent person or body and not by the officer party to the contract. The position will, however, be different where there is no dispute or

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

there is consensus between the contracting parties regarding the breach of conditions. In such a case the officer of the State, even though a party to the contract will be well within his rights in assessing the damages occasioned by the breach in view of the specific terms of clause 12.

8. We are, therefore, in agreement with the view of the Full Bench that the powers of the State under an agreement entered into by it with a private person providing for assessment of damages for breach of conditions and recovery of the damages will stand confined only to those cases where the breach of conditions is admitted or it is not disputed."

i) The said principle was also laid down by a Division Bench of

Kerala High Court in Shriram Engineering Constructions Company

Limited2 and further held that when breach is not admitted, before

determining the amount by suit or arbitration by independent authority,

revenue recovery cannot be initiated for recovering disputed damages.

ii) In Taherunnisa Begum3, the combined High Court of Andhra

Pradesh at Hyderabad held that where there are disputes between alleged

debtor and Government with regard to certain liability, before initiating

recovery proceedings under Section - 52, there is an obligation cast upon

the State Government to hold a proper enquiry, furnish full particulars to

person sought to be fastened with the liability, consider his

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

representations and first determine liability or otherwise for the sums

said to be due.

iii) In the light of the aforesaid legal principle, coming to the facts

of the present, according to the respondents, there is shortfall in paddy

and that the petitioners' mills diverted the said paddy to black market.

They have also mentioned the quantity and amount i.e.,

Rs.64,09,39,079/- as mentioned in the distraint order dated 27.05.2024 of

respondent No.1 in W.P. No.17993 of 2024, while an amount of

Rs.91.13 Crores by respondent No.9 and Rs.77,10,78,639/- by

respondent No.10 in W.P. No.18357 of 2024. Whereas, according to the

petitioners, there is serious dispute with regard to the said alleged

variation in quantity and shortfall. Admittedly, the amount was not

determined by the respondents. Therefore, without determining the said

amount, initiation of proceedings under the R.R. Act for recovery of

arrears is contrary to the procedure laid down under the R.R. Act and the

principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments.

iv) The respondents have to first determine the said amount and

thereafter they have to initiate procedure laid down under the R.R. Act.

Moreover, it is the specific case of the petitioners that there was no

default at all. The said fact has to be considered by the respondents,

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

conduct inquiry, then they have to initiate procedure laid down under the

R.R. Act for recovery of arrears. Even after determination, they have to

follow the aforesaid procedure under the R.R. Act for recovery of arrears

of revenue. They cannot deviate from the procedure and issue notices

under the guise of recovery of arrears of revenue.

15. It is also the contention of the petitioners that there exists an

arbitration clause in the aforesaid agreement. Therefore, the proceedings

under the R.R. Act cannot be resorted. There is no dispute that Clause

No.13.4 of the said agreement deals with 'arbitration' and it says that

both the parties have agreed that in the event of any dispute with regard

to the said agreement, the same shall be referred to an Arbitrator. The

Arbitrator shall be appointed by Commissioner, Civil Supplies,

Government of Telangana/VC & Managing Director, TSCSCL.

i) In Sanjay Kumar4, the Patna High Court held that Arbitration

Act being a Central Act would prevail over Recovery Act, which is

enacted by the State. Paragraph Nos.51, 52 and 56 are relevant and the

same are extracted as under:

"51. What requires consideration next is as to whether the petitioners' right under the Arbitration Act stands foreclosed in the light of proceedings initiated under the Recovery Act or not?

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

52. The answer is simple both on facts and law.

53. Under Clause 15 and 16 of the agreement, parties themselves chose to be governed by both the statutes, without ousting proceedings under the other. The language of the agreement is amply clear. The agreement itself stipulated two different situations.

54. Even in law, there cannot be any conflict or restriction. The Arbitration Act stands enacted under Part IV, Chapter I, Entry 13 of List 3 of the Schedule VII of the Constitution. By virtue of Article 234, the said statute would prevail over the Recovery Act which stands enacted by the State under its Legislative power flowing from List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. The Arbitration Act Patna High Court REQ. CASE No. 146 of 2019 dt.03-07- 2020 is a central, and subsequent legislation would prevail over the said State Legislation.

55. xxxx

56. Matter needs to be examined from yet another angle. And that as to whether there is any conflict between the two statutes at all or not. A careful reading of both the Statutes only leads to an inescapable conclusion of not being so. More so considering the ambit and scope of both the legislations. The Arbitration Act provides a mechanism for adjudication of disputes, which can be by way of a claim and counterclaim inter se the parties to the agreement. Whereas the Recovery Act provides for a mechanism for determination of public

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

debt and recovery thereof, by way of a particular procedure. It is not as though with the issuance of a mere notice, all amounts are deemed to be recoverable as public debt. What requires consideration is whether the debt can be classified as a public demand or not. There is no mechanism for Patna High Court REQ. CASE No. 146 of 2019 dt.03-07-2020 the adjudicatory process of the disputes or claims of a private party under the Recovery Act. The proceedings under the Recovery Act are summary in nature, based on admitted, certain or unsustainable objections rather than the lengthy process of adjudication of a dispute, be it monetary or otherwise."

16. In the light of the above principle, in the case on hand,

according to the respondent authorities, there is shortage of paddy and

the petitioner mills failed to supply the rice and diverted the same in

black market. Whereas, according to the petitioners, there is no default

and in fact there was delay in supply of paddy. The respondents have

dumped paddy stocks of three (03) times to the agreed capacity. They

are in the said business for the last fifteen (15) years and there are no

complaints against the petitioners. Thus, there are disputes between the

petitioners and the respondents on the said aspects.

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

17. The petitioners in W.P. No.17985 of 2024 are claiming that

they are the shareholders of petitioner No.1 Company in W.P. No.17993

of 2024. Therefore, the Company is a separate entity, liability cannot be

fastened on the shareholders/Directors.

i) In R.K. Chaddha6, the Allahabad High Court held as under:

"In the absence of fraud being alleged to the effect that the Directors had siphoned off the funds of the Company, no recovery of the trade tax dues of the Company could be made from the personal assets of the Directors. The Court held that the liability of the shareholders as well as of the Directors was limited by shares and that if there were dues of the Trade Tax department against the Company, the department comes into the position of a secured creditor and can lodge a claim as a secured creditor in the liquidation proceedings.

The Company, in law has a separate legal entity of its own. Once incorporated, the entity of the Company is entirely separate from that of its shareholders. The Company has its own name, has its own seal, has its own assets and it can be sued or can sue for its own purposes. On the other hand, the liability of the shareholders is limited to the extent of its own shares, namely, to the extent of the capital invested by the shareholder. The creditors of the Company cannot obtain satisfaction from the assets of the shareholders

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

of the Company and similarly, the shareholders have no right to the assets of the company.

The Court is of the opinion that when tax dues are to be recovered from the Company, the Directors would not automatically be responsible unless there is a statutory provision under the Act, which in the instant case is non-existent. In the instant case, the Court is further of the view that the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil is not applicable and that the petitioners cannot be made personally responsible for the dues of the Company."

The said aspects were not considered by the respondents while issuing

distraint order, demand prior to attachment of land and notice of

attachment in Form Nos.1, 4 and 5 of the R.R. Act.

ii) Likewise, petitioner Nos.6 to 8 in W.P. No.18357 of 2024 are

claiming that they are not the Partners in petitioner Nos.9 and 10 mills.

There is no dispute with regard to the same. They have also filed

partnership deeds in proof of the same. Petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are no

way connected with petitioner No.10 Mill. Likewise, petitioner Nos.6 to

8 are no way connected with the management and affairs of petitioner

No.9 Mill. The said aspects were not considered by the respondents

while issuing the impugned notices in Form Nos.4 and 5.

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

iii) In S.K. Bhargava8, the Apex Court while exercising the

provisions of the Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979

held that even though Section 3 does not expressly provide for an

opportunity being given to the alleged defaulter to explain as to whether

any amount is due or not but in view of the nature of the said provision,

the principles of natural justice must be read into it. The requirement of

determination of the sum due by the Managing Director must be

regarded as providing for the Managing Director hearing the alleged

defaulter before coming to the conclusion as to what is the sum due. The

very use of the word "determine" and "sum due" implies that there may

be a lis between the parties and they have to be heard before a final

conclusion is arrived at by the Managing Director. It is not a mere claim

of the Corporation which is forwarded to the Collector for realisation,

but it is the "sum due" as determined by the Managing Director which

alone is recoverable. The determination cannot be done without notice to

the alleged defaulter.

iv) It is also the specific contention of the petitioners that the

properties of third parties, who are not revenue defaulters cannot be

attached. They have placed reliance on the principle laid down in

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

Taherunnisa Begum3. In the said decision, paragraph Nos.18, 19 and

26 are relevant and the same are extracted hereunder:

"18. In B. Kameswaramma v. Tahsildar, Tenali, 1975 (2) APLJ 26, Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy (as he then was) held that it is not open to the Tahsildar to attach property, which did not stand in the defaulters name.

19. This Court in Kalimili Radhakrishnaiah v. The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1979 AP 255 held that Section 5 of the Act empowers the Collector or any other officer empowered by him in that behalf to proceed against property belonging to a defaulter alone. It was also held that even assuming for a moment that if a person was in the position of a trustee and the state of a beneficiary, it would still not render the sale valid if it is not made in accordance with the requirement of the Act and that the person to whom loan was advanced for sinking the well alone but not a third party can be regarded as the defaulter for the purpose of the Act. This Court further held as follows:

"Section 5 of the Act itself gives an indication of the meaning of "defaulter" though this term has not been defined in the Act as it provided for steps to be taken for the recovery of arrears of revenue by proceeding against movable or immovable properties of the defaulters. Almost every one of the relevant sections in the Act refers to defaulter alone and not to the persons other than the defaulter. If it is proposed to

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

recover the amount from the plaintiff on the ground that he has taken over all the liabilities of the family, the proper remedy, if any, would be to file a civil suit against him but in no event property admittedly belonging to him could be validly attached and sold under the Act for realization of arrears due from Sankaraiah who alone is the defaulter in this case."

26. Admittedly, the petitioners are not the revenue defaulters. Therefore, their properties cannot be a subject-matter of adjudication or sale, without determining their liability to pay the said amount or that the said properties were purchased by the revenue defaulter in their name benami. In the absence of the same, the impugned order, dated 17- 11-1999, passed by the Collector, Kadapa and the Gazette Notification, dated 17-8-2000, attaching the properties of the petitioners, cannot be sustainable and the same are accordingly quashed. However, this order shall not preclude the respondents to proceed in the manner authorized under the Act or any other law, if they are so advised."

v) As discussed above, the petitioners in W.P. No.17985 of 2024

are only shareholders, they are not revenue defaulters and their liability

is to the extent of their share held. Petitioner Nos.4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in W.P.

No.18357 of 2024 are claiming that they have nothing to do with

petitioner Nos.9 and 10 rice mills. Therefore, before issuing the distraint

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

order in Form No.1, impugned demand prior to attachment of land in

Form No.4 and notice of attachment in Form No.5, the respondents did

not consider the said aspects. Therefore, on the said ground alone, the

said order and notices are liable to be set aside.

18. It is also the specific contention of the petitioners in W.P.

Nos.17993 of 2024 and 17985 of 2024 that the respondents have placed

properties of the petitioners therein in the list of prohibitory properties

under Section - 22A of the Registration Act, 1908, by way of issuing

communication dated 27.05.2024. It is relevant to note that vide

communication dated 27.05.2024, the District Collector, Suryapet

District, respondent No.5 in the said writ petitions, requested respondent

No.12 - Sub-Registrar, Kodada, to include the properties belonging to

the Directors, Shareholders and Family Members of petitioner No.1 rice

Mill in the list of prohibitory properties.

i) In the light of the above, it is relevant to note that in P.

Srinivasulu v. The Sub-Registrar, Renigunta, Chittoor District9, the

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad while dealing with Section

- 22-A of the Registration Act, detailed as follows:

. 2012 (6) ALD 260

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

"A perusal of the aforesaid provisions would show that for class of documents relating to the properties covered by Section 22-A(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Registration Act, there is prohibition for registration, even without issuing any notification. But for the class of documents covered by Section 22- A(1)(e), the State Government is empowered to issue notification prohibiting registration of the documents relating to the properties in which avowed or accrued interests of Central and State Governments, Local Bodies, Educational, Cultural, Religious and Charitable Institutions is likely to adversely affect."

ii) Likewise, in Vinjamuri Rajagopala Chary v. Principal

Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad10, a Full Bench of the

High Court of Judicature for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh

at Hyderabad held as follows:

"36. (vi) The properties covered under clause (e) of Section 22-A shall be notified in the official gazette of the State Governments and shall be forwarded, along with the list of properties, and a copy of the relevant notification/gazette, to the concerned registering authorities under the provisions of Registration Act and shall also place the said notification/gazette on the aforementioned websites of both the State Governments. The Registering

. 2016 (1) ALT 550

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

authorities shall make available a copy of the Notification/Gazette on an application made by an aggrieved party.

19. Having regard to the position of law as stated above, and the material placed before this court, admittedly, there is no notification issued by the Government in exercise of its powers either suo moto or based on any application by any person. Though, it is stated by the Learned Advocate General that the concerned police authorities having regard to the complaints received, have issued the impugned communications directing the authorities not to register further documents, it is not shown to this Court that any communication having been addressed to the State Government requesting for issue of any notification in relation to the immovable properties from not being registered by placing the same in prohibitory list interalia including the petitioners properties.

20. Further, under the provisions of the Act, whereby the power to refuse to register a document being conferred only on the registering authority in respect of the properties for which a notification is issued by the State Government under Section 22- A(e) of the Act, and the Registration Act, 1908, being a complete code in itself, the action of the 17 registering authority in refusing to register a validly executed document on its presentation, on the basis of the impugned communications issued by the police

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

authorities, is contrary to the powers conferred on the said authority under the Act. The submission of the Learned Advocate General that the communication issued directing the Registering authority not to entertain further registration cannot be construed as is not in the nature of seizure contemplated under Section 102 Cr.P.C. and that it is only in the course of investigating into the crimes registered, it is to be seen that exercise of such power by the authority should be expressly conferred on such authority by the statute. No such provision under statute conferring power on the police authorities to address such communication has been shown to this court.

21. The learned Advocate General placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nevada properties (supra) [2019 AIR 4554 (SC)] and by drawing attention of this Court to para 20 of the said judgment, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the authorities are empowered to seize the documents relating to 18 immoveable properties, would submit that the police authorities in the course of investigation into any crime are duly authorized to 13 seize title documents as they are considered as movable property under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. and in the facts of the present case instead of resorting to seizure after such documents are executed, the respondent police authority had issued the impugned communication not to register any documents

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

presented for registration and such action is in preventive nature.

22. Though the above submission of the learned Advocate General is appealing at the first blush, in absence of any provision of law conferring such power on the Station House Officer to issue communication of such nature, the only source of power referable is Section 102 Cr.P.C. If Section 102 of Cr.P.C. is considered as source of power, the same applicable only in respect of moveable property and such power does not extend to immoveable property, as has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nevada properties (supra). Though, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision has observed that the power under Section 102 Cr.P.C. can be exercised in 19 relation to the documents of title relating to immovable property, no material is placed before this Court to show that any of the documents either relating to the petitioner or petitioners predecessors in title having been seized in connection with any crime under investigation, requiring further alienation from being stopped."

iii) Thus, issuance of Notification under Section - 22-A (1) (c) of

the Registration Act is mandatory to mention properties in the list of

prohibitory properties. In the present case, there is no notification issued

in terms of Section - 22-A (1)(c) of the Registration Act. The District

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

Collector, vide communication dated 27.05.2024 requested the Sub-

Registrar, Kodada, to include the properties of shareholders, Directors

and Family Members of petitioner No.1 Company in prohibitory

properties list. Therefore, the same is in violation of the principle laid

down in the aforesaid two (02) judgments.

19. It is relevant to note that Clause - 2 (b) of the Telangana Rice

(Custom Milling) Order, 2015, vide G.O.Ms.No.18, dated 30.10.2015

deals with 'custom milling', and it says that milling of paddy, not

belonging to the miller into rice in his rice mill on payment of mill

charges in cash or in kind as prescribed by the Government of

India/State Government. Clause - 8 (1) (e) (i) and (ii) envisages that any

stock of rice or paddy in respect of which or part of which he has reason

to believe, a contravention of any of the provisions of this Order has

been, or is being, or is about to be committed; and that any package,

covering or receptacle in which such stock of rice or paddy or is found,

can be seized and removed with such aid or assistance as may be

necessary.

20. Clause - 5 of the Agreement with Rice Milers for Custom

Milling of Paddy KMS-2023-24 (Kharif & Rabi) deals with 'scope of

work', and it says that the miller shall be supplied paddy in accordance

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

with his/its milling capacity by the District administration as per the

clauses of operational guidelines prescribed in Paddy Procurement

Policy of KMS 2023-24 by the Telangana State Government for custom

milling of paddy procured by the Corporation. But, according to the

petitioners, the respondents have dumped three times the paddy to that of

capacity of the petitioners.

i) Clause - 9 of the said Agreement deals with 'in the event of

default', and it says that if the miller diverts paddy stocks delivered for

custom milling or indulge in purchasing raw rice of PDS clandestinely

and attempting to deliver under CMR category, then the miller will be

blacklisted and action will also be initiated against all the concerned as

per Order, 2015 and also under Criminal Laws.

ii) Clause - 9.1 of the agreement deals with 'default in CMR

delivery'. As per Clause - 9.1.1, the Collector (CS) shall take over

paddy available in the mill premises and auction the same. The default

miller cannot participate in the auction process in cases where balance

paddy is available in the mill. The TSCSCL reserves the right to invoke

the provisions of the R.R. Act, so as to recover the value of defaulted

CMR from the miller who failed to deliver CMR within due date @

125% of rates of CMR fixed by the Government of India along with

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

interest @ 12% per annum on the actual payable amount and also any

other expenditure incurred on that by the first party from the due date to

the date of actual payment, along with expenditure incurred for

auctioning process, duly deducting the amount obtained through auction

of available paddy stocks, waiving of the penalty is not appealable.

iii) Clause - 9.1.2 of the agreement says that in cases where

balance paddy is not available in the Mill, the TSCSCL shall collect the

cost of short quantity of equivalent rice for the defaulted paddy @ 125%

of rates of CMR fixed by the Government of India along with interest @

12% per annum on the actual payable amount and also any other

expenditure incurred on that by the first party from the due date to the

date of actual payment. For the said purpose, the TSCSCL shall invoke

the provisions of the R.R. Act. Waiving of the penalty is not appealable.

Therefore, power is available to the respondents including TSCSCL for

initiation of the R.R. Act. But, at the same time, they have to follow the

procedure laid down under the R.R. Act. Before initiation of recovery of

arrears under the provisions of the R.R. Act, the respondents have to first

determine the said arrears and then proceed with recovery of the same.

Without determination, they cannot recover it. In the present case, the

respondents failed to determine such arrears before issuing the impugned

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

distraint order, demand prior to attachment of land and notice of

attachment in Form Nos.1, 4 and 5, respectively.

iv) Clause - 10 of the said Agreement deals with 'Joint Custody',

and it says that paddy received by the Miller from the respective PPC's

shall be under the joint custody of the Corporation i.e., TSCSCL and

Miller. On behalf of the Corporation, the Deputy Tahsildar (CS) of

respective area or any other official nominated by the Collector (CS)

shall be the joint custodian. Placing reliance on the same, learned

counsel for the petitioners would contend that there is no default by the

petitioners and question of diverting the rice in black market does not

arise.

21. It is also relevant to note that according to the petitioners,

TSCSCL and other respondents did not pay milling charges and

transport charges to them. Statements showing the details are also filed.

Therefore, the respondents have to consider the said aspects. However,

this Court cannot consider the said aspect in the present writ petitions

where challenge is with regard to initiation of proceedings under the

R.R. Act. If the respondents did not pay such milling charges and

transport charges, liberty is granted to the petitioners to take steps in

accordance with law.

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

22. The petitioners have also filed No Due Certificates for the

year 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2021-22 etc., to contend that there were no

dues by them. The respondent authorities have to consider the said

aspects while initiating proceedings under the R.R. Act.

23. It is also apt to note that Clause - 10 of the Order, 2015 deals

with 'periodical verification of stocks with the miller', and it says that

the Enforcement Officer shall periodically, which shall not be less than

once a week, verify the paddy/rice stock in the mill and issue a

certificate, and that copies of the said certificates shall be furnished to

the Purchase Officer and the Collector exercising jurisdiction in the area.

It is the specific contention of the petitioners that the same was not

followed and, therefore, the respondents cannot blame the petitioners.

24. It is the specific contention of petitioner No.1 in W.P.

No.17993 of 2024 that no notice was issued to it. The respondents have

failed to file any proof to show that notice was served on it.

25. It is also apt to note that in Shiv Shankar Dal Mills Ltd., v.

State of Haryana 11, the Apex Court held that where public bodies under

colour of public laws recover people's money, later discovered to be

. AIR 1980 SC 1037

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

erroneous levies, the dharma of the situation admits of no equivocation.

A Division Bench of this Court also had an occasion to deal with the said

issue as to whether Board Standing Orders are statutory in nature or non-

statutory in K. Anjaiah v. Asst. Commissioner of Proh. & Excise12.

As discussed supra, Form No.1, Appendix-II was issued under Standing

Order No.41, paragraph No.25. Therefore, the respondents have to

consider the same.

26. It is relevant to note that in the agreements, there is no clause

stating that the Mills whether partnership firm or Limited Company has

to inform the TSCSCL with regard to change of constitution, if any.

Therefore, TSCSCL shall be careful while drafting the agreements and

has to specifically fix responsibility on the millers whether it is a

Company or Partnership Firm to necessarily inform the change of

constitution of either partnership firm or Company.

CONCLUSION:

27. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the respondents did

not follow the aforesaid procedure laid down under the R.R. Act while

issuing destraint order in Form No.1 under Section - 8 of the R.R. Act;

demand prior to attachment of land in Form No.4 under Section - 25 of

the R.R. Act and Notice of attachment in Form No.5 under Section - 27

. W.A. Nos.711 & 911 of 2008, decided on 26.05.2022

KL,J W.P. No.17985 of 2024 & batch

of the R.R. Act. Therefore, they are liable to be set aside and

accordingly the same are set aside. However, this order will not

preclude the respondent authorities in initiating proceedings afresh by

strictly following the procedure laid down under the R.R. Act and also

the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments.

28. All these writ petitions are accordingly allowed. In the

circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

writ petitions shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 28th August, 2024 Mgr