Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1930/2021 on 20 September, 2021
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
sl. No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No.1930 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, Advocate, for
the petitioner.
Mr. G.S. Negi, Brief Holder, for the State
of Uttarakhand.
Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, CGSC, for the Union
of India.
Mr. Subhash Upadhaya, Advocate, for
the respondent No.4.
With the consent of the parties, the writ
petition is being disposed of finally.
The brief controversy as engages
consideration in the present writ petition is that
under the "Kharif Purchase Policy 2020-2021",
which was modified vide Policy No.634/20-
XIX-2/38 Khadyal/2020 dated 29.09.2020, the
petitioner's rice mill, which was a registered
rice mill, with the respondents, was selected for
the purposes of supplying the paddy, of a total
quantity of 9682 quintals of paddy. Out of the
aforesaid total quantity, for which the supply
order was placed on the petitioner, he had
supplied only 2159.98 quintals, and the balance
left to be supplied was 4327.22, quintals, which
was supposed to be supplied up to July, 2021.
In pursuance to the aforesaid purchase
order which placed on the petitioner. Looking
to the prevalent pandemic situation, the
Government of India, has on its own extended
the period for the supply of the aforesaid paddy,
by virtue of the Letter dated 06.08.2021,
whereby the supplying period was extended till
31.08.2021, but still the petitioner could not
supply the balance paddy to the respondents,
and the reason which has been assigned in the
writ petition, is that on account of the family
circumstances, as his brother had met with the
sad demise and his father was also ailing, he
could not comply with the conditions within the
extended period, as provided by the
Government of India vide letter dated
06.08.2021.
Looking to the peculiar circumstances of
the case, and particularly, when the petitioner
has expressed his willingness to supply the
balance paddy to the respondents, within a
period of one month from today, since it
amounts to venturing into the terms of the
supply order, which has been placed on the
petitioner by the respondents.
This Court at this stage is not expressing
any opinion on the merits of the matter, it
would be in the interest of justice that for
settling the controversy, that though the
petitioner has represented before the other
respondents vide his representation dated
06.09.2021, but unfortunately, he has not
represented before respondent No.1, who has to
take a call on the petitioner's request for the
extension of time period for the supply of the
balance paddy.
In view of that eventuality, under the
peculiar circumstances of the case, subject to
the condition, the petitioner submits the
representation before the respondent No.1,
within a period of ten days, from the date of the
receipt of the certified copy of this judgment,
the respondent No.1, is requested to decide the
same within a period of two weeks' thereafter.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, this
writ petition is being disposed of. However, it is
made clear that this Court has not expressed
any opinion on the merits of the matter.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
20.09.2021
NR/
