NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FARMERS PROCUREMENT PROCESSING AND RETAILING COOPERATIVES OF INDIA LIMITED (NACOF) Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND
LAWS(JHAR)-2018-8-216
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on August 21,2018

National Federation Of Farmers Procurement Processing And Retailing Cooperatives Of India Limited (Nacof) Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents




JUDGEMENT

Rajesh Shankar, J. - (1.)The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 29.06.2017, whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted. It has further been prayed to restore the work of the petitioner as Paddy Procurement Agency and to forthwith ensure physical verification of the stocks of paddy lying at various godowns of PACS (Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative Societies), lifting of paddy lying at various godowns of PACS/LAMPS, transportation of the same to the tagged rice mills and delivery of requisite CMR (Custom Milled Rice) to FCI (Food Corporation of India) by the rice mills and acceptance of CMR by the FCI in a time bound manner.
(2.)The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as a Paddy Procurement Agency in the State of Jharkhand under a scheme issued vide notification bearing no. 4 (4)/2015-Py.I dated 09.06.2016, whereby the Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, Government of India fixed the Minimum Support Price (MSP) for the Kharif Marketing Season (KMS) 2016-17 for Chhotanagpur Division excluding Ramgarh District and Santhal Pargna Division. The respondent no. 2 -the Secretary, Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi issued show cause notice dated 06.04.2017 stating that the petitioner has made delayed payment to the farmers and thereby asked the petitioner to reply as to why it should not be blacklisted. The said notice was replied by the petitioner on 10.04.2017 explaining the difficulties being faced by it in doing the work. The respondent no. 2 issued second show cause notice on 09.06.2017 as to why the petitioner should not be penalized and blacklisted. The petitioner replied the said notice on 17.06.2017, however, vide resolution dated 19.06.2017, the respondent no. 2 conveyed the petitioner that if it fails to make payment to the farmers, it would be blacklisted. The petitioner replied the letter on 23.06.2017 informing that the payment of farmers of 12 districts to the tune of Rs. 65 crores against the paddy which reached the rice mills, has been made and further requested to send the remaining paddy to the rice mills so that the balance amount can also be settled off by the petitioner. However, the respondent no. 2 passed the impugned order dated 29.06.2017, whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted which gives rise to filing of the present writ petition.
(3.)The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had bonafide intention to execute its assignments as it had cleared payment of Rs. 65 crores, however, without analyzing that the delay in making payment to farmers occurred due to delayed delivery of paddy to rice mills which was not attributable to petitioner, the respondent no. 2 issued the impugned order dated 29.06.2017, blacklisting the petitioner on account of non-payment to the farmers. It is further submitted that any decision of the State authority having adverse civil consequences including blacklisting should be taken only after a fair opportunity of personal hearing is given by the authority to the party suffering the consequences. It is also submitted that the impugned order of blacklisting suffers from arbitrariness and premeditated action against the petitioner. The respondent no. 2 has exercised the power to blacklist the petitioner for indefinite period which is contrary to the settled position of law. It is further submitted that the impugned order also suffers from lack of specific findings determining the non-performance on the part of the petitioner which only makes reference to the delay in making payments to the farmers.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.