HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI W.P.Nos.9446, 13234 and 28564 of 2025 & C.C.No.3240 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: Questioning the action of respondent authorities in not supplying paddy to the petitioner for Custom Milling Rice (CMR) for the Rabi Marketing Season 2024-25, Writ Petition No.9446 of 2025 has been filed. 2. Challenging the order dated 30.04.2025 passed by respondent No.2, bearing Ref.No.CS1/17/RJY/2025 under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 with an intention to flout the orders of this Court dated 25.04.2025 in Writ Petition No.9446 of 2025, Writ petition No.13234 of 2025 has been filed. 3. Questioning the action of respondents in not supplying paddy to the petitioners for Custom Milling Rice (CMR), Writ Petition No.28564 of 2025 has been filed. 4. Contempt Case No.3240 of 2025 is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents for willful disobedience of the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.28564 of 2025. 5. The brief facts of the aforesaid cases are that: i) Petitioner No.2 is the Managing Director of petitioner No.1 company and he entered into an agreement with respondent No.5 for supply of rice 2 under the Custom Milling Rice scheme. During the course of inspection conducted at the premises of petitioner No.1, based on certain allegations that the petitioners were involved in procuring PDS rice and recycling the same as CMR to the Government, the officials, upon finding certain discrepancies, seized stock containing 2133 kgs of PDS rice allegedly placed by the henchmen of unofficial respondent i.e, respondent No.9 and 29,320 kgs of CMR rice along with a vehicle, all valued at Rs.24,46,838/-. ii) The Tahsildar (CS) lodged a report as against the petitioner and seven others and the same were registered as FIR No.8 0f 2025, under Section 318 (4) r/w 3(5) of BNS read with Section 7(1) of Essential Commodities Act. Pursuant thereto, the Sub-Inspector of Police has filed charge sheet before the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kovvuru stating that the allegations against accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 are not established. iii) On 09.01.2025, respondent No.2 (Collector (CS)) issued a show cause notice under Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), to which the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation. Subsequently, respondent No.2 passed an order dated 24.02.2025 observing that the seized rice was not PDS rice, but CMR rice and thereby levied a penalty of Rs.20,000/- for keeping the lorry in the premises without any prior permission and directed respondent No.7 to release the seized CMR rice of 293.20 quintals with immediate effect. 3 iv) While the things stood thus, respondent No.6 issued a Circular vide Ref.No.CS.04/2025 dated 29.03.2025 informing about the paddy procurement operations for the Rabi Marketing Season 2024-25. Having come to know that the petitioner’s name would not be reflected in the Rythu Seva Kendras (RSK) for supply of paddy for CMR purposes, the petitioners submitted a representation on 01.04.2025 to respondent No.2 requesting them to supply paddy for the CMR purposes and enable it to continue its milling operations. As no action was taken by the respondents on the representation, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.9446 of 2025. v) Pursuant to filing of the said Writ Petition, the representation made by the petitioners on 01.04.2025 was rejected vide order dated 17.04.2025 on the ground that the petitioners had already been blacklisted, even though the proceedings under Section 6A of Essential Commodities Act were still pending. Except for referring to G.O.Ms.No.11 Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department, dated 24.09.2024, the respondents did not take into consideration the orders passed by respondent No.2 on 20.01.2025 and the charge sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector vide FIR No.8 of 2025. vi) This Court, vide order dated 25.04.2025, granted an interim order in Writ Petition No.9446 of 2025 suspending the rejection order dated 17.04.2025 and further directed the respondent authorities to supply paddy to the petitioner for CMR purposes for the season 2024-25. 4 vii) Subsequently, on 30.04.2025, respondent No.2 passed final order under Section 6-A of the Essential commodities Act ordering confiscation of 100% value of PDS rice without considering the fact that this Court has already suspended the order dated 17.04.2025. Challenging the said finial order, Writ petition No.13234 of 2025 has been filed, as it was in gross violation of interim order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.9446 of 2025. Aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2025 in Writ Petition No.9446 of 2025 dated 25.04.2025, respondent No.9 preferred Writ Appeal Nos.575 and 576 of 2025 on 03.05.2025 along with a leave petition vide I.A.No.1 of 2025 seeking leave of the Court, however, the said leave application was dismissed on 24.06.2025.Respondent No.9 also filed another application bearing No.CP/7/241/AMR/2025 under Section 241 of Companies Act, inter alia questioning their removal of him as the Director, however, the same was dismissed as devoid of any merits vide order dated 08.05.2025. viii) On the other hand, the petitioners have preferred an appeal before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram vide C.A.No.224 of 2025 under the provisions of Section 6-C of the Essential commodities Act, 1955 against the final order passed under Section 6-A dated 30.04.2025. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioners filed Crl.M.P.No.568 of 2025 seeking suspension of the final order and to direct the respondent authorities to supply paddy for Custom Milling. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both parties, 5 passed an order dated 17.09.2025 suspending the order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the Collector (Civil Supplies) East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram till disposal of the main appeal and further directed respondent No.2 to supply paddy for Custom Milling till disposal of the main appeal. ix) Challenging the said order, respondent No.9 approached this Court vide Crl.P.No.10401 of 2025 seeking quashment of the order dated 17.09.2025 on the ground that a mandatory direction cannot be given against the authorities. This Court, at the time of admission, was pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge on the ground that the Sessions Court might have exceeded its jurisdiction. x) The petitioners made a representation to respondent authorities on 09.10.2025 requesting them to supply paddy for Custom Milling purpose. However, the same was left unconsidered. Aggrieved by the same, Writ Petition No.28564 of 2025 has been filed. This Court, vide order dated 16.10.2025, granted interim direction to the respondent authorities to supply regular quantity of paddy to its capacity for Custom Milling purpose by considering the representation made by the petitioners on 09.10.2025. Pursuant to the interim order dated, 16.10.2025, the petitioners submitted a representation dated 18.10.2025 to respondent authorities to supply paddy for Custom Milling purpose, but no action has been taken by the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, Contempt Case No.3240 of 2025 has been filed. 6 6. Heard Sri Venkat Challa, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vineeth Appasani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies Department appearing for the official respondents and Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for unofficial respondent-respondent No.9. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner No.1 is a well-established rice mill with substantial turnover during the paddy season with significant financial commitments, including monthly loan repayments. The arbitrary denial of paddy supply is causing severe financial hardship and adversely affecting the livelihood of around 50 employees dependent on the mill. He further submitted that in view of filing of Writ Petition No.28564 of 2025, Writ petition No.9446 of 2025 has become infrucutous. He also submitted that pursuant to the filing of W.P.No.9446 of 2025, final order came to be passed, which is under challenge in W.P.No.13234 of 2025, however since a statutory appeal is available, the parties have already invoked the said remedy, and therefore nothing remains to adjudication and prayed to close Writ Petition No.13234 of 2025. Insofar as Writ Petition No.28564 of 2025 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners filed the said petition seeking supply of paddy for Custom Milling purpose and this Court granted interim order directing the respondent authorities to supply the paddy. Pursuant thereto, even after submission of representation, the authorities have not taken any action, hence, Contempt 7 Case No.3240 of 25 has been filed. Hence, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and learned counsel for unofficial respondents on counter submitted that the action of the respondents is justified in view of serious allegations against the petitioners regarding diversion and recycling of PDS rice into CMR, which affects the public distribution system. They further contended that the petitioners were rightly excluded from paddy supply operations in terms of the policy guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 24.09.2024, and such administrative decisions are taken in public interest to ensure integrity in procurement and distribution. They further contended that the petitioners do not have an absolute right to demand paddy supply, and such supply is subject to eligibility, policy decisions, and satisfaction of authorities regarding the conduct of the millers. He further submitted that in view of the serious nature of allegations and pending adjudication, the respondents acted cautiously, and their actions cannot be termed as arbitrary or illegal. 9. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 10. As culled out from the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the material available on record, proceedings under Section 6-A 8 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 resulted in a final order dated 30.04.2025, which is subject matter of Criminal Appeal No.224 of 2025 pending before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram. It is evident from the record that the appellate Court, under its order dated 17.09.2025has passed an order suspending the operation of the final order dated 30.04.2025, subject to the result of the appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of filing of Writ Petition No.28564 of 2025, Writ Petition No.9446 of 2025 has become infrucutous and prayed to close the Writ Petition. Recording his submission, Writ Petition No.9446 of 2025 can be dismissed as infructuous. 12. Pursuant to the filing of Writ Petition No.9446 of 2025, final order dated 30.04.2025 came to be passed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that aggrieved by the final order, Writ Petition No.13234 of 2025 has been filed and pursuant thereto, as the parties have already invoked the statutory appellate remedy and therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in Writ Petition. Recording the said submission, Writ Petition No.13234 of 2025 can also be closed. 13. Insofar as Writ Petition No.28564 of 2025 is concerned, the petitioners have preferred an appeal before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram vide Criminal Appeal No.224 of 2025 under the provisions of Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 9 1955 against the final order passed under section 6-A dated 30.04.2025. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioners filed an application before the District Court vide Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.568 of 2025 seeking to suspend the final order and to direct the respondent authorities to supply paddy for Custom Milling purpose till disposal of the main appeal. 14. This District and Sessions Court, vide order dated 17.09.2025, suspended the order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the Collector (Civil Supplies), East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram till disposal of main appeal and further directed the respondent No.4 to supply paddy to the petitioner for Custom Milling purpose till disposal of the main appeal. Assailing the said order, the unofficial respondent-respondent No.9 filed Criminal Petition No.10401 of 2025 seeking to quash the said order dated 17.09.2025 to the extent of giving further direction to respondent No.4 to supply paddy to the petitioner for Custom Milling purpose, till disposal of the main appeal. This Court, vide order dated 07.01.2026 disposed of the Criminal petition by setting aside the order dated 17.09.2025 to the extent of directing respondent No.4 to supply paddy to the petitioner for Custom Milling purposes. The remaining portion of the order, suspending the Collector’s order, shall continue to remain in force. 15. As could be seen from the orders of the Coordinate Bench in Criminal Petition No.10401 of 2025, the learned Judge, by taking into consideration 10 the submissions made by the petitioner therein that pendency of Writ Petition No.13234 of 2025 and I.A.No.1 of 2025 were not brought to the notice of the District Court, passed the orders setting aside direction given to respondent No.4 to supply paddy to the petitioner for Custom Milling. As many as three (3) months have elapsed since the date of passing of the orders in Criminal Petition No.10401 of 2025 and as this Court is disposing all the matters pending before this Court and there are changed circumstances, to meet the ends of justice, the following orders became necessary. 16. In view of the above, Writ Petition No.28564 of 2025 is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to supply paddy to the petitioners, subject to the outcome of the Criminal Appeal No.224 of 2025 pending on the file of the Court of Principal District and Sessions Court, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram. 17. Insofar as Contempt Case No.3240 of 2025 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the supply order passed by the authorities, there has been compliance with the interim directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.28564 of 2025, and therefore nothing survives for adjudication and the Contempt Case is liable to be closed. Recording the said submission, the Contempt Case is closed. 18. In the result, Writ Petition No.9446 of 2024 is dismissed as infructuous, Writ Petition No.13234 of 2025 is closed, Writ Petition No.28564 of 2025 is 11 disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to supply paddy to the petitioners subject to the outcome of the Criminal Appeal No.224 of 2025 on the file of the Court of Principal District and Sessions Court, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram. The respondent authorities shall continue to supply the paddy to the petitioners for Custom Milling Purpose. However, such supply shall be subject to the regular conditions applicable on par with other millers. The Contempt Case No.3240 of 2025 is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 08.04.2026. MP 12 246 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI W.P.Nos.9446, 13234 and 28564 of 2025 & C.C.No.3240 of 2025 Dated: 08.04.2026 13 MP