M/S. Saraswathi Industries vs. The State Of Telangana

Held

The Court directed Respondent No. 3 (District Collector, Nirmal) to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 28.10.2025 and 06.11.2025 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.17, CA, F&CS (CS.I-CCS) Department, dated 04.10.2025. The Court further directed Respondent No. 3 to take an appropriate decision based on these representations and communicate the same to the petitioners. The Court did not delve into the merits of the lease default or the FIR, focusing instead on ensuring the representations were considered as per the relevant Government Order. The ratio decidendi is that administrative authorities must consider representations made by parties, especially when procedural fairness and principles of natural justice are invoked, and when a specific Government Order governs the consideration process. The operative direction is to consider the representations and pass a decision.

Facts

M/s. Saraswathi Industries, a paraboiled rice mill represented by its GPA holder, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to Respondent No. 4 (Additional Collector, Civil Supplies) to consider their representations dated 28.10.2025 and 06.11.2025 for the allotment of Kharif 2025-26 CMR Paddy. The petitioners contended that their reply to a show-cause notice regarding a lease default by the mill's lessee was not considered, and an FIR was registered against them. They argued that their subsequent representations should be considered. The respondents, represented by the Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation, submitted that the petitioners are ineligible due to the lessee's default in supplying Custom Mill Rice within the prescribed period and the lack of response to the show-cause notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of Respondent No. 4 in not considering the petitioners' representations dated 28.10.2025 and 06.11.2025 for allotment of Kharif 2025-26 CMR Paddy is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice, as per Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners argued that their reply to a show-cause notice was not considered, and an FIR was registered against them. They asserted that their subsequent detailed representations, dated 28.10.2025 and 06.11.2025, seeking consideration for paddy allotment, were not addressed. They sought a direction for these representations to be considered. Revenue/State's Argument: The respondents contended that the petitioners are not eligible for paddy allotment because the lessee of their rice mill defaulted in supplying Custom Mill Rice within the prescribed period and did not respond to the show-cause notice issued to them. They implied that this default disentitles the petitioners from receiving further paddy allotment.