1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2013

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.ABDUL NAZEER

WRIT PETITION Nos.13022-13039/2013 (GM-EC)

BETWEEN:

1. RAITABANDHU AHARODYAM PVT., LTD., MARUTHIPURA KANIYOOR POST-574217 DISTRICT BY ITS DIRECTOR S.SHIVASHANKAR NAIK AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

2. SRI GAJANANA RICE INDUSTRIES HEBRI-576112 TALUK DISTRICT BY ITS PARTNER H.SATHISH PAI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

3. RAITHA SEVA GRAMODYOGA KANYANA, HEBRI-576112 BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER LAXMI NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

4. SRI BHAGIRATHI RICE INDUSTRIES KALMARGI-SHIRIYARA-576210 AND DISTRICT BY ITS PARTNER S.DINESH NAIK AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

5. VIKRAM INDUSTRIES 5-71, KELAPETE

2

HEBRI-576112 KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT BY ITS PARTNER H.PRABHAKAR NAIK AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

6. T.RAMESH NAYAK RICE MILL OWNER THEKKATTE-576231 KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT BY ITS PROPRIETOR T.RAMESH NAYAK AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

7. VIJAYA AHARODYAMA MAIN ROAD SHIVAPURA-576112 KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER P.N.RAM BHAT AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

8. M/S JANAPRIYA RICE CORPORATION KADUHOLE POST MUNIYAL-574108 KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT BY ITS PARTNER K.MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

9. T.SANTHOSH NAYAK RICE MILL OWNER NEAR CANARA BANK NH-66, THEKKATTE TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT BY ITS PROPRIETOR T.SANTHOSH NAYAK AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

10. T.GOVINDARAYA NAYAK GENERAL MARCHANT,

3

THEKKATTE UDUPI DISTRICT BY ITS PROPRIETOR T.GOVINDARAYA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

11. ATKERE GOVINDRAYA LAXMAN PAI RICE MILL OWNER KOTESHWARA-576222 KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT BY ITS PROPRIETOR LAXMAN PAI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

12. SHIVASHAKTHI RICE INDUSTRIES SRIRAMPURA, HIRIYADKA POST UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT BY ITS PARTNER SHANKAR NAYAK AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

13. SRI ANANTHAPADMANABHA TRADING COMPANY, KUCHOOR ROAD MATADABETTU, HEBRI-576112 UDUPI DISTRICT BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER K.MANJUNATHA PRABHU AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

14. MAHALAKSHMI TRADERS TEKKETTE-576231 KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT BY ITS PROPRIETRIX S.G.NAYAK AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

15. KALMARGI RICE MILL KALMARGI, SHIRIYAR-576210 UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT BY ITS PROPRIETOR UMESH NAYAK AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

4

16. SRI RAMANJANEYA INDUSTRIES SHASTRI NAGAR, BELANJE ROAD, PO KUCHUR HEBRI-576112 KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER LAXMAN BHAT AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

17. SHANTHADURGA PADDY DRIER SURAL ROAD, SIDDAPURA-576229 KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT BY ITS PARTNER T.DEVDAS PAI AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

18. SRI NAVADURGA INDUSTRIES SACHERIPETE-576128 UDUPI DISTRICT BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER B.SRIKANTH KAMATH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS .. PETITIONERS

(BY SRI T.BASAVARAJ, ADV.,)

AND:

1. UNION OF BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

3. THE COMMISSIONER

5

FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPT., NO.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD BANGALORE-560001.

4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT -575001.

5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI-574113. .. RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ASG FOR R1 SRI R.B.SATYANARAYANA SINGH, HCGP FOR R2 TO R5)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE AND QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 28.1.2013 ISSUED BY R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-G INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO PADDY IS CONCEREND AND ETC.,

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :

O R D E R

The petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking the following reliefs :

a) Issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the Notification bearing No.FCS 36 RPR 2011 dated 28.01.2013 issued by the 2 nd respondent produced as

6

Annexure-G in so far as it relates to paddy is concerned;

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 2 nd respondent to consider the representation dated 1.2.2013 given by the petitioners Association produced as Annexure-L to the writ petition.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners will be satisfied if the second prayer is granted for the present. In so far as challenge to the notification at Annexure-`G’ is concerned, the question may be kept open.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is placed on record. I direct the 2 nd respondent to consider the representation at

Annexure-`L’ dated 1.2.2013 within a period of one

week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till the disposal of the representation at Annexure-`L’, the

7 respondents 2 and 3 shall not take any precipitative action in terms of the Notification at Annexure-`G’ insofar as the petitioners are concerned. Question relating to the validity of the Notification at

Annexure-G is kept open.

Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

Sd/- JUDGE

PB