Koppula Bhavani vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Koppula Bhavani, is the owner of a rice mill, Bhavani Rice Mill Corporation Food Production. She leased the mill to respondent No. 4 and entered into an agreement with respondent No. 3 to receive paddy from the government under the CMR scheme. The petitioner received a notice dated January 29, 2026, from respondent No. 2 (District Collector, Suryapet) calling for an explanation regarding the non-delivery of 1008.673 Metric Tons of CMR Rice for the Kharif Season of 2024-2025. The notice threatened initiation of action against the petitioner's rice mill if a satisfactory explanation was not provided. The petitioner claims she is not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the mill, residing in Hyderabad, and that the notice was issued to a watchman and a reply was sent by someone not concerned with the mill. She sought to declare the notice illegal and arbitrary and to set it aside.

Held

The Court, in light of the submissions made by both the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies, disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to submit a reply to the notice dated January 29, 2026, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Upon the petitioner filing such a reply, the respondents were directed to consider it and pass appropriate orders and take further action in accordance with law. The Court made no order as to costs. The specific legality or arbitrariness of the notice was not definitively ruled upon, as the matter was resolved by allowing the petitioner to submit a reply and directing the respondents to consider it.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notice dated January 29, 2026, issued by the District Collector, Suryapet (Respondent No. 2), calling for an explanation for the non-delivery of 1008.673 Metric Tons of CMR Rice for the Kharif Season of 2024-2025, is illegal and arbitrary, thereby warranting its setting aside, as contended by the petitioner. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that she is not directly involved in the operations of the rice mill, as its affairs were managed by her husband and the mill was leased to respondent No. 4. She further contended that the notice was improperly served on a watchman and that a reply was sent by an unauthorized person. The petitioner, residing in Hyderabad, claimed ignorance of the mill's day-to-day operations and the specific issue of non-delivery. She sought permission to submit a proper reply and for the respondents to consider it. Respondents' Arguments: The learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted that any reply submitted by the petitioner would be considered by the respondents, and appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with law, after which further action would be taken.