Maha Laxmi PBRM v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-02-18. Maha Laxmi PBRM v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 33831 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION NO:4329 OF 2026 Between: Maha Laxmi PBRM, Balanagar, Vemulawada, Vemulawada Proper and Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District, represented by its Partner, Cheekoti Ashok S/o. Vistharaiah, Age. 64 Years. ... PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary to the Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The Additional Collector and Ex-Officio Executive Director, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. , Rajanna Sircilla District, Sircilla. 3. The District Manager, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. , Rajanna Sircilla District, Sircilla. 4. The Collector (CS), Rajanna Sircilla District, Sircilla. 5.
The District Civil Supplies Officer, Rajanna Sircilla District, Sircilla. 6. The Commissioner Civil Supplies, Civil Supplies Bhavan, Somaiiguda' Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENTS Petition under Atticle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the orders passed by the respondent No. 2 in the name of notice in Lr. No. Default Millers/Notices, dated 16-01-2026 (wrongly typed as 16-01'2025), which is served on the petitioner on 07 -02.
2026, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, without calling for any due explanation from the petitioner and without conducting any enquiry by giving arbitrary, opportunity of hearing to the petitioner imposing penalty, is nothing but illegal, nu I and void and violative of the principles of natural and also iustice set violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia. Consequently, aside the r;ame. lA NO: 1 CtF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders passed by the respondent No. 2 in the name of notice in Lr. No. DefaLlt Millers/Notices, dated 16-01-2026 (wrongly typed as 16-01-2025)' which is st:rved on the petitioner on 07 -O2-2O26. Counsel for the Petitioner: SR! K. VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1,4,5 & 6: AGP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: SRI K.
DEVENDER, SC FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, CORPORATION The Court made the folloring: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDEABAD HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No. 4329 of 2O26 DATE z L8. O2. 2O26 Between Maha Laxni PBRM Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary and 5 others .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking following relief: "To issue an order or direction more partie-ularly one in tle nafire of uit of mandamus or ang other appropiate utrit declarirry fue orders passed by t? te respondent No. 2 in t\e name of notice in Lr. No. Default Millers/Noties, dated 16. 01. 2026 (wronglg typed as 16. 01. 2025), which is serued on tlle petitioner on 07. 02.
2026, witlwut issuirry ang notice to the petitioner, without calling for ang explanation from the petitioner and without conducting anA enquiry by giuing due opportunitA of hearing to the petitioner imposing penalty, is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, null and uoid and uiolatiue of tle principles of nadtral justice and also uiolatiue of Articles 74, 19 and 21 of the Constittttion of India. Consequentlg, set aside the same, and to pass such otler order... " 2. Heard Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Devender, learned Standing counsel for respond(:nt Nos. 2 and 3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. l, 4, 5 and 6. 3. LeeLrned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner rice mill was established in the year 2OO7 and that responde,nt authorities are allotting paddy to petitioner rice mill under Custom Milling Rice Scheme since past several years; that respondent authorities allotted a paddy quantity of 4064. 320 MTs.
to the p,=titioner rice milI from 29. 10. 2021 to 29. 10. 2021; that petitione:: milled the entire paddy allotted to petitioner rice mill and delivered the same. Surprisingly, respondent No. 2 has issued impugnerl proceedings dated 16. 01. 2026, directing the petitioner to pay an arnount of Rs. 31,23,852/- equivalent cost of defaulted 06 quantity t@ 125 including penalty and 12 o/o interest on or before 22. 02. 20:26, failing which, the criminal action will be initiated against the partners of petitioner rice mill. 4. Lea:ned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that entire paddy which was entrusted to the petitioner has been milled and resultant rice has been delivered. However, there is delay because of reasons attributable to respondent Corporation and also in view of delay in supply of FRK by the respondent Corporati,:n. ,/"/ J 5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that prior to passing impugned order, no notice was issued and no explanation was called for, therefore, the impugned proceedings are bad being violative of principles of natural justice and prayed to set aside the same. 6. Per Contra, learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Civil Supplies and learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would submit that the petitioner was entrusted with 3544. A60 MTs of paddy and the petitioner was supposed to deliver 2375. 056 MTs, out of which, petitioner had delivered only 2018. 206 MTs of rice, leaving a balance of 356. 850 MTs of rice equivalent to 532. 612 MTs of un-milled paddy and thus, there is clear default on the part of petitioner in supply of milled rice, therefore, the respondent No. 2 has rightly issued the impugned notice dated t6. oL. 2026. 7.
Admittedly, before passing the impugned proceedings, no prior notice was issued and no opportunity was alforded to the petitioner to explain the delay and alleged non supply of milled rice, therefore, without adverting to merits of the case and rival contentions, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: . / i) The impugned proceedings dated L6. OL. 2O26, issued by respondent No. 2 be treated as show cause notice; ii) that the petitioner shall submit explanation to the show cause notice dar-ed 16. 01. 2026, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order; and iii) that the respondent No. 2 shall consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period ofthree (03) weeks thereafter. iv) Till strch time, respondent-corporation shall not take any further a<:tion pursuant to impugned proceedings against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscr:llaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed. Sd/. C. DEEPIKA SISTANT REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '1. Drincipal The Secretary to the Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The ,Additional Collector and Ex-Officio Executive Director, Telangana State - Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. , Rajanna Sircilla District, Sircilla. 3. The l)istrict Manager, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. , Rajarrna Sircilla District, Sirc. illa. (lollector (CS), 4. The Rajanna Sircilla District, Sircilla. 5. The l)istrict Civil Supplies Officer, Rajanna Sircilla District, Sircilta. ()ommissioner 6. The Civil Supplies, Civil Supplies Bhavan, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 7. One,3C to SRI K. VENUMADHAV, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to SRI K. DEVENDER, SC FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATON loPUcl 9. Two CCs to GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad . [OUT] 'l0.
Two CD Copies PMK Bs \q- HIGH COURT D ATED i1810212026 E o \ U z 0 6 t! ,1f, 2026 \ ORDER WP. No. 4:t29 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUTCOSTS . pfd ta . tu
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.