Telangana High Court
Rice Millers Association Telangana … vs Union Of India on 11 March, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.15889, 15926, 19107, 19159, 19521, 19546,
19548, 19549, 19555, 19614, 19621, 19630, 19723, 19946,
20506 and 27766 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Mr. Pasham Mohith, learned counsel for the petitioners
in W.P.Nos.15889, 15926, 19159, 19521, 19546, 19548, 19549,
19555, 19614, 19621, 19630, 20506 and 27766 of 2024, Mr.
K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.19107,
19723 and 19946 of 2024, Mr. B.Narasimha Sharma, learned
Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. A.S. Vasudevan
and Mr. K.L.N.Raghavendra Reddy, appearing on behalf of respondent
No.1 Union of India and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Standing
Counsel appearing on behalf of Food Corporation of India (for short
‘FCI’).
2. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have questioned the
action of the respondents in rejecting the delivery of Fortified Rice
Kernels (hereinafter referred to as ‘FRK’) supplied by the petitioners
for the crop year 2023-24 and sought consequential direction to set
aside the inspection conducted by respondent No.1 on 25.04.2024,
26.04.2024 and 29.04.2024 and also rejecting the lot of
Acknowledgments submitted by the petitioners, and seeking to set
2
aside the communication orders issued by respondent Nos.1 and 3
declaring as Beyond Rejection Level (for short ‘BRL’) and sought
consequential direction directing the respondent No.2 to accept the
future deliveries of rice by the petitioners rice millers, without
reference to the alleged rejection communication orders. Therefore, all
the writ petitions were heard together and are being decided by this
common order.
3. Brief facts of the case:
3.1 For the facility of reference, facts from W.P.No.15889 of 2024
are being referred to.
3.2. According to the petitioners, petitioner No.1 Association was
registered under the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001 and it
consisting various rice mills situated in Nalgonda District, Telangana
State. The petitioner Nos.3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 are the rice mills, which are
situated in Nalgonda District and they are engaged in the business of
supplying rice to respondent No.2. In the year 2022, the Government
of India with an intention to improve the quality of rice, introduced the
scheme of fortification of rice, whereby Fortified Rice (FR) would be
supplied through the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS).
Accordingly, respondent No.1 had issued Operational Guidelines
dated 13.12.2022 on Quality Control for FRK and Fortified Rice. As
3
per the said Operational Guidelines, all the rice millers are obligated
to blend FRK with Custom Milled Rice (for short ‘CMR’) in the ratio of
1:100 by using an automatic blending machine in order to ensure that
the blending process takes place in an efficient manner.
3.3 The petitioners further averred that they are strictly following
the Operational Guidelines issued by respondent No.1 while supplying
FRK to respondent No.2. Accordingly, respondent No.2 had accepted
such deliveries in the year 2022 without raising any objections.
However, in the year 2023, respondent No.1 rejected the deliveries
made by the petitioners after lapse of long period of time through
communication dated 06.06.2023 alleging that the FRK were not
blended with the CMR in the prescribed ratio. Immediately, the
petitioners have submitted representation on 18.08.2023 to
respondent No.2, stating that respondent authorities accepted the
supply of the stocks made by the petitioners after conducting
thorough inspection and after lapse of long period, they are rejected
the deliveries on the alleged ground that FRK were not blended with
the CMR in the prescribed ratio. Unless the stocks supplied by the
petitioners are accepted, they will be put to great irreparable loss.
They further stated that the alleged deficiencies in the nutritional
value of FRK cannot be attributed to the petitioners since FRK are
procured by the petitioners from the third parties/agencies, who have
4
been authorized by respondent No.2 to supply FRK and therefore, any
deficiency in the nutritional value of the FRK is attributed to such
third parties/agencies only.
3.4 They further averred that basing on the representation
submitted by the petitioners and similarly situated rice millers,
respondent No.2 and Federation of All India Rice Millers Association
had brought the above said facts to the notice of respondent No.1 and
accordingly, a meeting was convened on 18.08.2023. During the
course of the said meeting, in order to ensure transparency, it was
agreed upon that SOP dated 15.03.2023 notified by respondent No.1
shall be revised. As per the revised notification, FRK will be checked
for the level of micro nutrients in fortified rice by gathering the
samples in the presence of rice millers and State Government agency.
Thereafter, the petitioners have submitted another representation on
11.09.2023 requesting respondent No.1 to resolve the issue pertaining
to replacement/rejection of FRK.
3.5 They further averred that on 26.12.2023 respondent No.1
notified revised Standard Operating Procedure (for Short “SOP”) for
quality management protocols for FRK and fortified rice. As per the
revised SOP, dated 26.12.2023, in the event, the sample collected
from rice millers fails on account of blending, an opportunity should
5
be given to the rice millers to bring blending ratio of the rejected stock
within the prescribed limits or alternatively by adding conventional
FRK in FR, or by adding conventional rice in fortified rice, so that the
blending ratio in the fortified rice becomes acceptable. As per the
revised SOP dated 26.12.2023, respondent No.1 ought to have verified
the blending ratio and if the ratio is within the prescribed limit,
delivery of FRK can be accepted.
3.6 It is further averred that in the month of March and April 2024,
the petitioners once again made deliveries of FRK to respondent No.2.
After conducting a thorough mechanized check up, respondent No.2
has accepted the same without raising any objections. Thereafter, on
25.04.2024, 26.04.2024 and 29.04.2024, respondent No.1 had
purportedly deputed a team to inspect the food storage depots under
respondent No.2 and calling upon the Executive Director, Food
Corporation of India, Zonal Office, South, through communication
dated 11.06.2024 to take appropriate action for the stocks that have
been declared as BRL.
3.7 The petitioners further averred that respondent No.3 issued
notification on 18.06.2024 intimating the petitioners that the stocks
delivered by them for the year 2023-24 have been rejected and the
same was allegedly BRL and further directed the petitioners to replace
6
the BRL stock with fresh stock. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners
have filed the present writ petitions.
4. Respondent No.1 filed counter-affidavit denying the averments
made by the petitioners inter alia contending that the Department of
Food and Public Distribution (for Short “DFPD”) have established
policies to ensure the delivery of high-quality food grains to
beneficiaries and all stakeholders are required to follow the SOP
guidelines. A meeting was held on 18.08.2023 with members of The
Federation of Rice Millers Association, during which, the SOP dated
15.03.2022 was discussed. The Federation requested the concerned
rice millers be present during the sampling of 10% of the procured
and stored stock for micronutrient testing, however, no decision was
made by the Ministry on this matter. The Storage and Research (S&R)
Division, under the direct supervision of the DFPD, manages post-
harvest food grain operations. There are eleven Quality Control Cells
under the DFPD, with headquarters in New Delhi and regional offices.
In Telangana, rice procurement is carried out by the State
Government (under the Decentralized Procurement Scheme) and the
Food Corporation of India (FCI) (under the Non-Decentralized
Procurement Scheme). The Central Government oversees the quality
of food grains procured through both schemes and covers the entire
7
cost of procurement operations for the State Government and Food
Corporation of India as per the approved budget.
4.1 It is further averred that the quality of the fortified rice stored
for distribution through PDS/other welfare schemes a team of DFPD
conducted inspection of various FSDs (Food Storage Depot) under FCI,
Khammam and Nalgonda Districts w.e.f. 03.05.2023 to 08.03.2023
along with FCI and State Government officials. During the inspection,
the sampling was done as per the ISO (International organization for
standardization) norms titled as “Indian Standards CEREAL AND
CEREAL PRODUCTS-SAMPLING (IS 14818:2017)”. There was
completely unbiased selection of stocks made at random, after careful
examination of the stocks. The samples were drawn and seized
during the course of inspection and they were analyzed in the
laboratory of DFPD under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food &
Public Distribution in the presence of respondent No.2 and State
Government officials and they were not purposively targeted to a
particular rice miller. As the DFPD is the final/appellate authority,
there is no provision for the reanalysis of the samples.
4.2 It is also averred that the redressal mechanism i.e., the appeal
procedure as mentioned in the writ petition is applicable only during
the time of procurement/acceptance of the stock. As the inspection
8
conducted by the officers of the Ministry is a routine activity, the
appeal procedure does not apply to the present case. It is further
averred that there is no provision for involvement of rice millers at any
stage of inspection conducted by the officials. Moreover, the presence
of concerned rice millers is not allowed in order to maintain the
confidentiality of the entire process and to avoid any undue influence
on the inspecting officers.
5. Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that
respondent No.1 had issued Operational Guidelines dated 13.12.2022
on quality control for FRK and fortified rice and the rice millers should
have an automatic blending machine having the standard ratio
prescribed by Bureau of Indian Standards (for short “BIS”) to ensure
accurate blending at a ratio of 1:100.
5.1 It is further averred that the Quality Control Cell (QCC) of the
Department of Public Distribution, Government of India, conducts
both periodic and surprise inspections at respondent No.2 Depots to
monitor the quality of food grains during procurement, storage, and
distribution managed by respondent No.2 and other agencies. FCI
accepts food grain stocks based on the uniform specifications setup by
the Government of India, as outlined in letter No. FCI HQ-
QC012(11)/2/2023-QC, with reference to the details of inspection,
9
sampling, and analysis procedures for the procurement of paddy and
the acceptance/purchase of rice stocks. In this context, all 14 stocks
checked by Ministry are accepted on AGA (Automatic Grain Analyser)
for quality parameters at the time of receipt. However, 13 stocks have
been manually analysed in respect of FRK as per SOP of
FCIHQQC029/1/2024 QC dated 15.02.2024, and 1 stock has been
analyzed by AGA machine in respect of FRK.
5.2 It is also averred that all BRL stocks communicated on
06.06.2023 have been replaced by the concerned rice millers during
the last year. As per the respondent no.2 letter No.HQ-
QC012(11)/2/2023-QC, BRL stocks identified during subsequent
inspections should be immediately replaced and the stocks must be
verified by the AGM (QC) of the concerned Divisional or Regional
Office. Accumulating of BRL stocks in Depot premises may not be
allowed, as it adversary affect the storage and effect on stocking of fair
average quality and potentially disrupting the Public Distribution
System, and in case parties do not lift the rejected lots/consignment
within 24 hours, they may not be allowed to dump their
consignments. An action will be taken against the concerned miller in
accordance with the instructions contained in the office letter
No.QC/2(1)/06-07/Kharif specifications, dated 07.08.2007.
10
5.3 As per revised notifications, FRK must be checked for micro-
nutrient levels in the presence of rice millers and State Government
agencies is not correct. It is further averred that the bleeding ratio of
FRK refraction should be in between 0.9% to 12% mandatorily. The
14 stocks checked by respondent No.1 were found BRL in terms of
blending ratio of FRK which was on lower side i.e., 0.58% to 0.8% and
on higher side blending ratio was 1.3% to 1.72%. It is further stated
that any higher and lower percentage of FRK or variation in blending
ratio prescribed by the Government of India 0.9% to 12% will not
supply optimum dose of micronutrients (Vitamin B9, Vitamin B12,
and Iron).
5.4 The appeal procedure is applicable only at the time of
acceptance, which follows a three-level process. The first level is with
the Assistant General Manager (QC), the second level is with the
Deputy General Manager (QC) of the Regional Office, and the final
level is with the Central Grain Analysis Labouratory, Ministry of
Consumer Affairs, Food, and Public Distribution, Government of
India. The Central Grain Analysis Labouratory serves as the appellate
laboratory for testing physical parameters in food grains such as
wheat, rice, paddy, bajra, jowar, millets, and others for various
procuring and consuming agencies. However, the respondents are
requesting replace the stocks as per existing guidelines.
11
6. Mr. Pasham Mohith, learned counsel for the petitioners,
submitted that the petitioners rice millers are engaged in the business
of custom milling of rice and supplying the rice to respondent No.2.
In the year 2022, the Government of India introduced a scheme for
the fortification of rice to improve its quality, ensuring that fortified
rice is supplied through the TPDS in accordance with guidelines
framed by respondent No.2. As per the Operational Guidelines
notified by respondentNo.2, all the rice millers are obligated to blend
FRK with CMR in the ratio of 1:100. The petitioners delivered FRK to
respondent No.2 in March and April 2024, and after conducting a
thorough mechanized check, the stocks were accepted without any
objections.
6.1 He further submitted that a surprise check was conducted,
without communication or intimation to the petitioners, on the stocks
lying with respondent No.2. On 11.06.2024, the QCC of respondent
No.2 reported to the Director that during the inspection of three
depots, total 56 rice samples were collected, and out of it, 14 stocks
were declared as BRL. It was recommended that the stocks be
replaced as per procedure and liquidated only after verification by the
DFPD team. The surprise check conducted by the officials of
respondent No.2 is contrary to the SOP.
12
6.2 He further submitted that on 18.06.2024, the State Civil
Supplies Corporation Limited, District Office, Nalgonda, issued a letter
regarding the replacement of BRL stocks. The analysis showed that
only one sample exceeded the 1.25% FRK shows as BRL, while the
other 13 had minor FRK percentage variations due to handling. On
the very same day, the petitioners requested the Commissioner of Civil
Supplies, Hyderabad, to re-examine/re-analysis the samples.
However, the petitioners’ request for re-analysis has not been
considered.
6.3 He further submitted that QCC team had drawn samples,
without issuing notice and opportunity to the petitioners and without
conducting on-the-spot analysis and even without complaint from any
individual. The respondents have not followed the mandatory
procedure as completed under SOP. On 05.08.2024, the petitioners
requested the respondent No.2 to re-examine the samples. However,
the same was not considered the same.
6.4 He also submitted that the petitioners urged that the procedure
for fortified rice samples was not followed correctly, as the initial
analysis was not conducted within the prescribed time. The checking
process should have been completed within 24 hours and any
rejection should have been conveyed within one week of dumping,
13
especially when the respondents have conducted surprise checks in
the absence of any complaints or grievances is not permissible under
law.
6.5 He also submitted that on 26.09.2023, respondent No.2 has
issued guidelines for sampling and analysis procedure to be followed
in procurement of paddy and acceptance/purchase of rice stocks
during Kharif marketing season 2023-24. As per clause 9, samples
will be drawn jointly with State Government representative by the
technical assistant for the purpose of analysis to determine
acceptability of the consignment as per the uniform
specification/SOP. However, Clause Nos.12 and 17 were not followed
and Clause No.23 states mandatory checks and quality control teams
should conduct surprise checks with reports critically examined. He
further submits that ISO regulations for cereals and pulses sampling
were adopted by the Bureau of Indian Standards. As per the SOP
dated 15.03.2023, there is a provision of appeal mechanism under
Clauses 3 and 5. He further submitted that the respondents have not
communicated the report to the petitioners and also not provided an
appeal mechanism exists at the time of acceptance of stock.
6.6 He further submitted that on 12.01.2024, respondent No.2
introduced enhanced quality control measures using an AI-based
14
automated grain analyzer. Clause 6 states that if the AI analyzer
malfunctions, samples can be tested at a nearby center and manual
analysis is permitted with explicit GM (Region) approval to prevent
work disruptions.
6.7 He further submitted that the appeal procedure for Fortified
Rice, as per Government of India’s 2023 guidelines, mandates drawing
three sealed samples at the time of stock acceptance in the presence
of officials and any stocks later identified as BRL must be replaced by
the rice millers. He further submitted that respondent No.2 in its
letter, vide RO TL-27.0038.0/1/2023-PROC-RO TL (E 97949) dated
01.10.2024, clearly stated that there is no provision of reconsideration
and opportunity for representation/joint analysis of rice samples in
the presence of all stakeholders, as per the instructions/guidelines
issued by the Ministry.
6.8 He further submitted that respondent No.2 not followed the
proper guidelines while conducting the surprise check and also denied
the opportunity to present their case. He further argued that
respondent No.2 did not maintain proper storage and affecting stock
quality.
6.9 In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following
judgments;
15
1. Mahavir Rice and General Mills v. State of Punjab 1
2. East India Commercial Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Central board of
revenue, Delhi 2
3. M/s. Sankambari Rice Industry, Bargarh and ors v. UOI
(W.P (C)No.28700 of 2022)
7. Mr. K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners,
submitted that the stocks were received by respondent No.2 from the
petitioners from 18.03.2024 to 05.05.2024. On the same day, tests
were conducted and accepted them, as per guidelines issued by
respondent No.2. But, later, on 11.07.2024, the respondents
conducted a surprise check, without issuing any notice, and passed
order stating that the said stocks are BRL and requested to replace
the same. Therefore, the same is gross violation of principle of natural
justice.
8. Mr. B.N. Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General of India
appearing for the respondents, submits that W.P.Nos.15889 and
15926 of 2024 should have been dismissed for mis-joinder of parties,
as the impugned order dated 18.06.2024 applied only to six rice
millers directing them to replace the BRL stock with fresh stock.
Similarly, W.P. No. 27766 of 2024 filed by the association should also
1
2023 SCC online P&H 1631
2
1972 SCC Online Del 317
16
be dismissed, since separate writ petitions had already been filed
before this Court.
8.1 Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Central
Government introduced the scheme under TPDS for the purpose of
supplying the rice to the people, who are below the poverty line,
students, pregnant women, etc.,. He further submitted that National
Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories supervise
the testing and ensuring fortified rice blended at the correct ratio of 1
gm. of FRK per 100 gr. of CMR by conducting random checks with 40
lakhs metric tons of paddy sampled at a 10% rate. He further
submitted that any initial rejection at delivery only allows a remedy of
appeal is available.
8.2 He further submitted that surprise checks were conducted by
the Central Government team along with the officials of respondent
No.2 and Civil Supplies Corporation. There are 30 rice millers filed
writ petitions from Nalgonda and Karimnagar Districts. Hence, the
writ petition filed by the Association i.e., W.P.No.27766 of 2024
questioning the very same procedure is not maintainable and the
same is abuse of process of law.
8.3 He also submitted that periodic checks and surprise checks
were conducted as per the Operational Guidelines on quality control
17
for FRK and FR, dated 13.12.2022. Later, revised SOP was issued on
26.12.2023 in order to maintain the quality of FRK and FR and to
provide good quality FR to the beneficiaries and all the stakeholders
are advised to ensure strict compliance.
8.4 The appeal mechanism applies only at the stage of accepting
CMR and not subsequent inspections. On 15.03.2023, the appeal
procedure for fortified rice samples failing to meet the DFPD and
FSSAI norms was established. The decisions made by referral or
appellate labs are final and cannot be questioned by any stakeholders.
8.5 He further submitted that there are 11 quality control cells
under respondent No.2 S&R Division in New Delhi, tasked with
ensuring food grain quality during procurement, storage and
distribution. These cells conduct periodic and surprise inspections at
various locations and formulate policies and SOPs for quality
management. On 26.09.2023, respondent No.2 had issued guidelines
for inspecting and accepting rice stocks during 2023-2024 Kharif
season. According to the said guidelines, the stocks identified as BRL
on subsequent inspection should immediately be got replaced by the
concerned rice miller and the replaced stock should invariably be
verified by the AGM (QC) and BRL stocks cannot be accumulated in
respondent No.2 Depots and in case the rice millers do not lift the
18
rejected consignment within 24 hours, they may not be allowed to
dump their consignment. As on the date of inspection, 14 rice millers
in Nalgonda and 16 rice millers in Karimnagar were instructed to
replace their stocks, though none were rejected, and some rice millers
were already replaced the stock. Hence, the relief sought by the
petitioners rejecting the delivery of FRK is not true and correct.
8.6 The rice millers association filed W.P. No. 27766 of 2024 and the
same is not maintainable under law on the ground that association is
not an aggrieved party, especially the affected parties/aggrieved
parties have already writ petitions. Learned Senior Counsel further
submitted that the impugned proceeding issued by the respondents
dated 15.03.2023 is valid and replacing stocks does not equate to
rejection. The respondents after following Operational Guidelines and
SOP, directed the petitioners to replace the fresh stock and the
technical issues raised by the petitioners cannot be adjudicated in the
writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
8.7 He further submitted that the judgments cited by the petitioners
are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case,
since the judgment referred by the petitioners supra 2 relating to the
petroleum products and supra 3 was withdrawn by the petitioners
therein.
19
8.8 In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Jayant Verma v. Union of India 3. The said
judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to the principle that
general legislative entries should not be interpreted in a manner that
undermines specific entries in the line with the maxim “generalia
specialibus non derogant”. The principle is Crucial in present case as
it highlights the necessity of the following Operational Guidelines and
SOP strictly.
9. Mr. Dominic Fernandes submitted that the manufacture of FRK
and fortified rice requires a blending ratio test within the limit of
1:100, as per the procedure outlined in the SOP. Clause 2.1 states
that FRK manufacturers must have an FSSAI license/registration
and the blending ratio should range from 0.9 to 1.2. There are stages
of quality management protocols of FRK and fortified rice, which are
Stage 1 : As per the quality management protocols for FRK and
fortified rice dated 26.12.2023, the vitamins and minerals premix
(VMP) used must comply with FSSAI guidelines, and manufacturers
must obtain a Certificate of Analysis (COA) from FSSAI-approved
laboratories, which should include a QR code for verification.
Manufacturers must maintain batch-wise records of the COA and
premix used for audit trails accessible to authorities. In Stage 2, rice
3
(2018) 4 SCC 743
20
millers blending FRK with conventional rice must procure FRK from
FSSAI-licensed suppliers, use a blending machine as per BIS
standards, and ensure homogenous blending at 1% by weight. Quality
checks should be performed through hourly blending efficiency tests,
and records must be maintained. Periodic and surprise checks by
DFPD are mandated, as mentioned in the letter dated 11.06.2024,
which also requires periodic checks of PDS quality. These guidelines,
formulated by the Department of Food and Public Distribution on
13.12.2022, are to be strictly adhered to by all stakeholders to ensure
high-quality fortified rice for beneficiaries, with immediate effect.
9.1 He further submitted that the appeal mechanism is only
applicable at the stage of accepting CMR and not for subsequent
inspections. As per the order of respondent No.2, dated 15.03.2023,
the appeal procedure for fortified rice samples found BRL as the
prescribed norms issued by the DFPD, Government of India, and
FSSAI, is final and it cannot be challenged by any agency or
stakeholder. Actions against delinquents will be based on the
ministry’s report. The existing appeal procedure for rejection of rice
stocks during the acceptance of CMR will continue to apply only to
physical analysis parameters as specified by the Government of India.
Therefore, no remedy of appeal is not provided or allowed at the
subsequent inspection stages. He further submitted that the rice
21
identified as BRL must be immediately replaced. However, out of 56
samples, 14 samples were found exceeding the uniform specification
limit of rice and declared as BRL. The respondent authorities are
directed that the stocks that are declared as BRL may be replaced as
per the procedure and they have not rejected the stocks, which were
declared as BRL. If the fresh stocks were supplied in place of BRL, no
prejudice would be caused to the petitioners.
9.2 He further submitted that as per the SOP for the Kharif season
2023-24, any BRL must be immediately replaced by the responsible
rice miller being verified by the AGM (QC) of the concerned Divisional
or Regional Office. Additionally, the accumulation of BRL in
respondent No.2 Depots is strictly prohibited. If the rejected lots are
not removed within 24 hours, appropriate action will be taken against
the rice millers.
9.3 In support of his submission, he relied upon of the judgment of
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Isher Singh
Hardeep Singh Rice Mills v. State of Punjab and others 4. The
principle of judicial restraint in administrative matters stating that the
procedural decision lie with authorities and interference is warranted
only in the cases of misuse of power or procedural violations. It
4
2023 SCC online P&H2830
22
declines to direct an investigation, emphasizing the discretion of the
authorities in policy implementation.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners, by way of reply, submitted
that FRK manufacturers must maintain batch-wise records of
Certificates of Analysis and the vitamins and minerals premixed in
production, uploading them to the FSSAI portal for audit purposes.
These records must also be available for inspection by respondent
No.2, DFPD and other authorities. He further submitted that the rice
miller association has locus standi in the matter. The respondent
authorities have conducted initial inspection without pointing out any
discrepancies. Later, the respondents conducted surprise checks in
their absence and the stocks were declared as BRL, without following
the due procedure and acted according to their own whims and
fancies. He submitted that SOP mandates that tests to be conducted
within two months, but this timeline was not adhered to by the
respondents.
10.1 He further submitted that the respondents used both AI
machines and manual methods for testing the stock, but the
procedure was unclear and no reasons were provided with regard to
discrepancy. It is stated in the counter-affidavit of respondent No.2
that 13 stocks were manually analyzed and 1 stock was tested by
23
using AI machines and they failed to explain the rationale behind
using manual sampling in some cases. In essence, the petitioners
argue that the inspection process, surprise checks, and sampling
procedures were flawed, lacked transparency, and violated the SOP.
10.2 In reply submissions again he relied upon the following
judgments:
1. State bank of India and others v. Rajesh Argarwal
and others 5
2. Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karmachari Sangh v. Union
of India & Ors 6
3. Jasbhai Motibhai Desai V. Roshan Kumar, Haji
Basher Ahmed And Ors 7Analysis:
11. Having considered the rival submissions made by respective
parties and after perusal of material available on record, it reveals that
in the year 2022, the Government of India introduced the scheme of
fortification of rice, whereby fortified rice would be supplied through
the TPDS for the purpose of supplying the rice to the people, who are
below the poverty line, students, pregnant women, etc., Accordingly,
respondent No.1 had issued Operational Guidelines dated 13.12.2023
5
(2003) 6 SCC 1
6
(1981) 1 SCC 246
7
(1976)1 SCC 671
24
on quality control for FRK and FR formulated by the DFPD in order to
maintain quality standards. As per the said guidelines, all the rice
millers have obligated to blend FRK with CMR in the ratio of 1:100 by
using an automatic blending machine prescribed by respondent No.2.
According to the petitioners, they are strictly following SOP procedure
issued by respondent No.1. However, in the year 2022, respondent
No.1 rejected the deliveries made by the petitioners alleging that the
FRK was not blended properly with CMR in the prescribed ratio.
Pursuant to the same, the petitioners have submitted representation
dated 18.08.2023 to respondent No.2, wherein it is stated that the
respondent authorities accepted the supply of the stocks made by the
petitioners after conducting initial inspection and after lapse of long
period, they are not entitled to reject the deliveries made by them.
Pursuant to the said representation, under the Chairmanship of the
Secretary (Food and Public Distribution), on the issues raised by the
Federation of All India Rice Millers Association, conducted a meeting
on 18.08.2023. In the said meeting, in order to ensure transparency,
it was agreed upon that SOP dated 15.03.2023 notified by respondent
No.1 has been revised. As per the revised notification, dated
26.12.2023, DFPD may conduct surprise checks to ensure the
prescribed level of micronutrients in Fortified Rice at any stage.
Thereafter, the petitioners have submitted another representation
25
dated 11.09.2023 requesting respondent No.1 to resolve the issues
pertaining to replacement of FR.
12. In March 2024 to June 2024, the petitioners made deliveries of
FR to respondent No.2 and after conducting thorough mechanized
checking, the officials accepted the same without raising any
objections. However, on 25.04.2024, 26.04.2024 and 29.04.2024,
respondent No.1 had purportedly deputed a team to inspect
respondent No.2 Depots and calling upon the Executive Director, Food
Corporation of India, Zonal Office, South, through communication
dated 11.06.2024, to take appropriate action for the stocks that have
been declared as BRL. Thereafter, respondent No.3 issued
proceedings dated 18.06.2024 informing the petitioners that the
stocks delivered by them for the year 2023-24 have been found BRL
and directed the petitioners to replace the BRL stock with fresh stock.
13. In all the writ petitions, it is stated that the rice millers have
installed the prescribed machinery to ensure that effective blending of
FRK with CMR and they procured FRK from the licensed
manufacturers, who have been authorized by respondent No.2. The
blending machine operates the blending as per the ratio prescribed.
Thereafter, the rice millers deliver the FR to respondent No.2. Upon
receiving such deliveries, respondent No.2 will conduct testing and
26
once such delivery is accepted, the role of rice millers comes to an
end.
14. The grievance of the petitioners is that as per SOP dated
15.03.2023, the respondent authorities shall conduct physical
analysis of the parameters by drawing samples from the stocks, which
were delivered by the petitioners. However, the respondents without
conducting such test and after accepting the deliveries, conducted
surprise inspection and rejected the deliveries of the petitioners. On
11.06.2024, respondent No.1 addressed a letter to respondent No.2
Corporation, wherein it is stated that as per the procedure, the team
from the Ministry was deputed to inspect the food storage depots
under respondent No.2 in the month of April, 2024. During the
course of inspection, three depots were inspected and in total 56
numbers of rice samples were collected. Thereafter, they conducted
analysis test and basing on the detailed analysis report, it is found
that out of total 56 samples of rice, 14 samples were found exceeding
the uniform specification limit of rice and declared as BRL. On
12.07.2024, respondent No.1 found in other Depots that out of 75
samples, 17 were found exceeding the uniform specification limit and
were declared as BRL. They further stated that the stocks that were
declared as BRL may be replaced at the earliest, as per the procedure.
27
15. The record further reveals that as per the mandate of
Government of India, a team of DFPD conducted inspection of various
FSBS, which are under the control of FCI in various districts in the
State of Telangana, along with FCI and State Government officials in
the month of March to June, 2024. During the course of inspection,
they have collected the samples and conducted test as per the higher
standards titled as “Indian Standards CEREAL AND CEREAL
PRODUCTS-SAMPLING”. The said samples were drawn and sealed in
the presence of Food Corporation of India and State Government
Officials. The samples drawn during inspections were analyzed in the
Laboratory of DFPD under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and
Public Distribution as per BIS standards titled as ‘Fortified Rice
Specifications’.
16. The claim of the petitioners is that respondent authorities have
conducted surprise checks, especially without giving any notice and
opportunity to the petitioners and without following due procedure
prescribed under the SOP and also conducted test without issuing
notice and opportunity to the petitioners and basing on the alleged
report furnished by the Government Authority, the respondent
authorities rejected the stocks supplied by the petitioners on the
ground that the same were found as BRL and the same is gross
violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the SOP. The
28
record reveals that as per the mandate of Government of India,
Storage and Research (S&R) Division works, as a regulatory authority,
conduct surprise checks to ensure that good quality of food grains
have to reach to the beneficiaries. The inspection of food grains are
carried out at Food Storage Depots (FCI, CWC, SWC & other State
agency godowns), rice mills, rail heads, truck heads and Fair Price
Shops by the Officers of the Quality Control Cells, which are under
the direct of the DFPD with its headquarters in New Delhi and
Regional Offices at Kolkata, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Bhopal,
Bhubaneshwar, Lucknow, Pune, Patna, Chennai and Guwahati. The
Depots were selected by the deputed Inspecting Officer invariably and
randomly as per the availability of stock position in the godowns.
During the course of inspection, the inspection team draws the
samples and sent for analysis test in the laboratory of DFPD as per
the BIS standards. In the said test, it was revealed that the stocks
supplied by the petitioners are BRL.
17. The record further reveals that in the surprise
inspection/check, as per the SOP, there is no requirement of issuance
of prior notice to the petitioners proposing to conduct surprise
check/inspection and also there is no requirement to conduct analysis
test in the presence of the petitioners, especially when the petitioners
29
have not attributed any malafides against the officials of respondent
Nos.1 and 2 that they intentionally refused to accept the stock
supplied by them. Hence, the relief sought by the petitioners seeking
to declare the action of the respondents in rejecting the delivery of FR
made by the petitioners for the crop year 2023-24 as illegal, is not
tenable under law, especially on the ground that the respondents have
not rejected the stock supplied by them and they only directed the
petitioners to replace the stocks as per the SOP for quality
management for FRK and FR, as the said rice is meant for Public
Distribution System.
18. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners have not brought
to the notice of this Court any provision or procedure that the
presence of the parties is required at the time of conducting
inspection, drawing of the samples and also at the time of conducting
analysis test. It reveals from the record that the presence of the rice
millers is not allowed on the ground that the respondents have to
maintain confidentiality of the entire process and to avoid undue
influence on the concerned Inspecting Officers. Hence, the
contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
respondents have conducted surprise inspections, drew samples and
30
conducted analysis test without providing notice or an opportunity
and rejected the stocks supplied by them is not tenable under law.
19. Insofar as the other contentions raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioners that though the petitioners have submitted
representation on 18.06.2024 before respondent No.3 authorities
requesting respondent No.2 to reanalyze the samples, the respondent
authorities have not taken any decision nor provided remedy of appeal
against the decision of respondent No.1 are concerned, as per the
guidelines framed under SOP dated 26.12.2003, there is no remedy of
appeal is provided against the decision taken by respondent Nos.1 and
2 authorities on the ground that they conducted inspection
subsequent to the acceptance of the stock by way of surprise checks.
As per the instructions issued by respondent No.2 dated 26.09.2023,
the remedy of appeal is provided at the time of acceptance of FR only,
but not subsequent stage of inspections.
20. In the case on hand, the competent authority conducted
surprise checks and after analyzing the samples, came to conclusion
that the stocks supplied by the petitioners’ rice millers found that they
are exceeding the uniform specification limit of rice and declared as
BRL. Pursuant to the same, respondent No.1 issued proceedings
dated 11.06.2024 informing respondent No.2 to take necessary steps
31
for replacement of the stocks. Pursuant to the above said proceedings
as well as the proceedings issued by respondent No.2, the Telangana
State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and Telangana Warehousing
Corporation, through impugned proceedings requested the petitioners’
rice millers to arrange the replacement of BRL stocks with fresh
stocks. Hence, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the respondent authorities rejected the stocks is not
tenable under law, since the respondents have not rejected the stock
and they only requested the petitioners’ rice millers to replace the
stocks on the ground that the stocks supplied by the petitioners’ rice
millers were found BRL.
21. The other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the inspecting authorities, in the absence of any
permission, conducted surprise physical inspection and conducted
manual testing contrary to the additional guidelines dated 15.02.2024
are concerned, the said guidelines were issued for enhancement of
quality control measures for usage of Artificial Intelligence based an
Automated Grain Analyzer (AIAGA) and the said additional guidelines
are came with effect from 15.02.2024. Whereas, in the case on the
surprise check was conducted by the competent authority as per the
guidelines framed under SOP dated 15.03.2023 and taken samples
and conducted test manually, wherein they found that the FR
32
supplied by the petitioners’ rice millers are BRL. As per the SOP
dated 15.03.2023, the authorities concerned are entitled to conduct
surprise checks at food storage depots, rice mills, railheads, truck
heads and Fair Price Shops and also no prior intimation is required.
As per clause 2 (b) of the SOP dated 16.07.2021 issued by respondent
No.1, surprise inspection can be conducted at any time by the Joint
team without giving any prior notice to the concerned authorities of
the State Government.
22. In Mahavir Rice and General Mill (supra), the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh held that when the petitioners are
denied allotment of paddy on the ground of defective fortified rice
when there is no defect in the CMR and defect in the forfeited rice is
on account of low quality of FRK and FRK has not been manufactured
by them, the Court is of the considered opinion that it would be
unjust, unfair and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India.
23. In East India Commercial Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the High
Court of Delhi held that the failure to draw samples in the presence of
the petitioners and the lack of connection between the test report.
Additionally, penalties under Section 167(8) should be imposed only
in cases involving prohibited goods, not mis-description. However, this
33
case is not applicable on the ground that issue pertains to petroleum
not food corporation.
24. In M/s. Sankambari Rice Industry, Bargarh (supra), the High
Court of Orissa at Cuttack, held that this case is not applicable to
present case as it is only an interim order and subsequently the main
writ petition was also dismissed as withdrawn on 09.05.2023.
25. In State Bank of India and others (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court referring to principles of natural justice held that
RBI’s circular classifying an account as fraudulent does not
automatically amount to blacklisting. In the present case, the
resupply of BRL stocks do not impact to any of the petitioners, as the
stocks were not rejected but merely requested for replacement.
26. In Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karmachari Sangh (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Article 32 is not limited to
recognized associations or individuals with a direct cause of action.
However, the present case involves the rejection of stocks and all the
rice millers have already filed separate writ petitions. Hence, there is
no necessity for an Association or Telangana Societies Rice Millers to
be a party to the litigation.
34
27. In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that the principle highlighted in this case is that only those with
a legitimate legal interest or grievance, specifically a “person
aggrieved,” should be allowed to challenge administrative decisions
through writ jurisdiction. The court emphasizes the importance of
strict scrutiny in determining standing to prevent frivolous petitions,
protect public policy, and ensure that the exercise of discretionary
powers does not undermine healthy competition or violate
fundamental rights. However, in the present case, aggrieved rice
millers have already filed individual writ petitions.
28. It is brought to the notice of this Court that during the
pendency of the writ petitions, pursuant to the decision taken by the
respondent authorities, Dhanalaxmi Industries i.e., the petitioner in
W.P.No.19723 of 2024, had already replaced 174 MT of BRL stock.
Hence, the grievance of the writ petitioner in W.P.No.19723 of 2024 is
no more in existence.
29. Insofar as the other writ petitions are concerned, it is already
stated supra, that respondent Nos.1 and 2 authorities have not
rejected the FR supplied by the petitioners and only directed them to
replace the stocks as per the norms fixed under SOP, as the stocks
supplied by the petitioners are found BRL, and this Court does not
35
find any ground, much less valid ground to interfere with the
impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities exercising the
powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
30. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to
costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
______________________
J.SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date:11. 03.2025
mar/pgp
[ad_1]
Source link