M/S. Radhika Rice Industries vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

M/s. Radhika Rice Industries (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging the speaking order dated April 3, 2025, issued by the Collector (Civil Supplies), Suryapet (4th Respondent). The order refused to allot CMR paddy for the Rabi season 2024-2025 to the petitioner's rice mill. The refusal was based on a shortfall of CMR rice for the Kharif Season 2016-2017 and the pendency of criminal cases against the petitioner. The petitioner offered to pay the value of the shortfall rice with interest, proposing an immediate payment of Rs. 23,42,024/- and the balance Rs. 40,00,000/- in installments. The respondents contended that the value of the shortfall rice along with interest amounted to Rs. 73,53,966/- as of December 2024.

Held

The Court found that criminal investigations were still pending against the petitioner and that the petitioner was willing to make payment for the shortfall in supplying CMR rice. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to pay 50% of the amount of Rs. 73,53,966/- within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The remaining 50% of the amount is to be paid within two weeks from the date of allotment of paddy for the Rabi Season 2025-26. The respondents were granted liberty to adjust any amounts due to the petitioner. The Court disposed of the Writ Petition with these directions, stating there would be no order as to costs. The issue of criminal cases was implicitly addressed by the Court's direction to pay the dues, implying that the allotment would proceed upon compliance, without waiting for the conclusion of criminal investigations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the 4th respondent's speaking order dated 03.04.2025, refusing to allot CMR paddy for Rabi 2024-2025 to the petitioner, is arbitrary, illegal, and in violation of the principles of natural justice, considering the petitioner's willingness to pay the outstanding amount and the pendency of criminal investigations? (Question of law and mixed fact and law). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the speaking order was passed without considering their representation to pay the outstanding amount for the CMR rice shortfall, including interest. They contended that the refusal was arbitrary and violated natural justice. They also highlighted that criminal investigations were still pending, implying no final conviction. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, through the learned Standing Counsel for the Civil Supplies Corporation, supported the speaking order. They maintained that the total outstanding amount for the shortfall rice, along with interest, was Rs. 73,53,966/- as of December 2024. They did not explicitly address the principles of natural justice or the pendency of criminal cases in their arguments presented to the court.