Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA THURSDAY, THE22D DAY OF MAY20141ST JYAISHTA, 1936 WA.No. 583 of 2014 () ------------------------------------ (AGAINST THE ORDER
IN WP(C).NO. 2977/2014 DATED1103-2014) ------------------------------- APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS3& 4: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.B NO.2030, MAVELI ROAD, MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI -20.
2. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.B NO. 2030, MAVELI ROAD, MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI -20 BY ADV. SHRI N.D.PREMACHANDRAN,SC,SUPPLYCO RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS12 & 5: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S. ST. THOMAS MODERN RICE MILL, PUNNAPRA-REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER DEVASSIA JOSEPH,PADINJAREPARAMBIL, KALARGOD, ALAPPUZHA,PIN-688 531 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA,PIN-688 001 4. THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, THAKAZHI P.O, ALAPPUZHA -688 562 R1 BY SRI.J.OM PRAKASH R2 TO R4 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2205-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J.
& P.V.ASHA,J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No.583OF2014- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2014 JUDGMENT
Manjula Chellur, C.J.
Appellants were respondents 3 and 4 in Writ Petition before learned Single Judge. This appeal is directed against an interim order dated 11.3.2014. Relevant portion of order reads as follows: "Heard Sri.G.Shrikumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Sri.N.D. Premachandran, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 on the interim relief prayed for. The pleadings and the materials on record disclose that the petitioner has not been allowed to procure paddy for the current season (third season of 2013-2014) on the ground that there was a shortfall in the release of customary mill rice during the second season of 2012- 2013. During that course of arguments today, learned standing counsel appearing for the Supplyco submitted that approximately 315.829 metric tonnes of rice still remains to be supplied by the petitioner. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will make good the deficiency in the course of the next three months and subject to the condition that the petitioner should make good the shortfall within the next three months, the petitioner may be permitted to participate in the paddy procurement for the current season. After considering the rival contentions and on going through the pleadings presently on record, I am of the considered opinion that in the event of the petitioner making good the deficiency in the rice during the course W.A.No.583 OF2014:
2. : of the next three months either in one lot or in tranches, the petitioner should also be permitted to participate in the procurement of paddy for the current season and respondents 3 and 4 should allot paddy to him. I accordingly direct that in the event of the petitioner submitting an affidavit in the form of an undertaking before the Managing Director of Supplyco undertaking to make good the balance quantity of rice (namely 315.829 metric tonnes) during the course of the next three months either in one lot or in tranches, along with the rice required to be supplied by him in respect of the paddy procured by him during the current season within the specified time, the Managing Director of Supplyco should permit the petitioner to participate in the procurement of paddy for the current season and allot paddy to the petitioner's rice mill. In the event of default on the part of the petitioner in complying with the aforesaid direction it will be open to respondents 3 and 4 to move this Court for modification of this order." 2. Admittedly, there was no supply of paddy as per directions of learned Single Judge in the impugned order. We feel, appeal is in all probability filed with an apprehension that respondents herein may file contempt petition against appellants herein. However, learned senior counsel representing respondent writ petitioners fairly submits that they have no intention to take a recourse like contempt proceedings.
3. Having regard to closure of third season of 2013-2014 when dispute arose between parties, if anyone needs any clarification it is still W.A.No.583 OF2014:
3. : open to parties to seek modification of order before learned Single Judge as proposed in impugned order itself. Fact remains writ petition is still pending. Defects expressed by learned counsel appearing for appellants can be brought to notice of learned Single Judge while arguing writ petition on merits and seek proper reliefs at the hands of learned Single Judge. With the above opinion, appeal is disposed of. MANJULA CHELLUR, Chief Justice P.V.ASHA, Judge jes