2025:JHHC:20813 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2939 of 2025 M/s Kishore Enterprises, Palamau, through its principal partner, Jugal Kishor ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Pubic Distribution, New Delhi 2. Food Corporation of India, through its General Manager (Region), Ranchi 3. The Divisional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Ranchi ….. Respondents ----- CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner: Ms. J. Mazumdar For Respondent Nos.2-3: Mr. Shubham Sinha ----- 02/29.07.2025 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notices dated 07.02.2025 & 22.02.2025 issued by the Divisional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Ranchi whereby the petitioner has been arbitrarily saddled with the liability of ‘transit loss’ which occurred before the receipt of goods by the petitioner at the Rail Head and a direction has been given to deduct the said amount from the next bill. Further prayer has been made for quashing the ‘acceptance order’ dated 26.02.2025 issued by the Divisional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Ranchi whereby the respondent authority has made arbitrary deductions of Rs.19,577/- & Rs.5,86,374/- against ‘SL-TL’ or Storage Loss-Transit Loss on the Transport Handling Contractor Bill of the petitioner for the month of November, 2024 owning to loss occurred in transit before the receipt of goods by the petitioner at the Rail Head. The petitioner has also prayed for directing the concerned respondent to dispose of its representations dated 18.02.2025, 28.02.2025 & 21.04.2025 whereby it has made requests to deduct the amounts of ‘SL-TL/Storage Loss-Transit Loss’ which occurred before it received the goods at Rail Head, Lohardaga as the same has been unlawfully saddled with it. 2025:JHHC:20813 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 submits that if the petitioner files a fresh representation along with the relevant documents before the respondent No.2 raising the aforesaid issue, an appropriate decision will be taken in accordance with law. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the prayer made in the present writ petition, without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to prefer a fresh representation on the present issue before the respondent No.2. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent No.2, after examining the relevant records and on providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner’s representative, shall take an appropriate informed decision in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of filing of the said representation. 4. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid liberty and direction. Satish/- (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)