HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9082 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondent and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties no. 2 & 3. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayer:- "I. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS, thereby commanding the opposite parties, more especially the opposite party No.3, to make payment of Fixed Deposit, paddy hulling, paddy & rice transportation, sukhan, as well as other expenses, along with 18% interest thereupon till the actual date of payment." 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has established a rice mill at Post- Tala, Tehsil- Patti, District- Pratapgarh, and is engaged in the business of rice milling and converting paddy into rice belonging to the U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. Pratapgarh. In pursuance of agreement entered into between the parties, the petitioner has supplied the total paddy in the form of rice to the respondent no.3. However, there was a delay and the Demand Notice was issued on 04.06.2015 by the opposite party no.3. The petitioner could not fulfill the demand, and therefore, the opposite party no.3 wrote a letter dated 01.10.2015 directing the petitioner to deposit the outstanding amount of Rs.43,72,000/-. The petitioner deposited Rs.25,00,000/- as balance of custom milled rice on 03.10.2015 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : P.K. Singh Bisen Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava M/S Singh Rice Mill Thru. Proprietor Sant Prasad .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Food And Supply Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) and wrote to the opposite party no.3 to adjust the money. During working with the opposite party no.3 for custom milling of rice, the petitioner has incurred expenses of Rs.18,00,000/- which the opposite party no.3 has not adjusted in the recovery that has been issued to him. 4. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has sold certain land belonging to him and has deposited the entire dues with the opposite party no.3. However, the expenditure undertaken by him for custom milling of rice has not been reimbursed to him. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 5. Sri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.3 has placed before this Court written instructions dated 12.09.2025 sent by the District Manager, P.C.F., Pratapgarh wherein it has been stated that the petitioner was to deliver 1171.160 metric tonne of custom milled rice, he had delivered only 879.14 metric tonne of such rice and 291.346 metric tonne was found short. The amount of shortfall was calculated in terms of money and some part of the same was recovered from the bank guarantee that the petitioner had deposited with the respondents and some had also been recovered by way of cash deposited by the petitioner. The total deposited by the petitioner including adjustment made for kutai and sukhan i.e. work carried out by the petitioner for custom milling of rice is Rs.47,69,684/-. The remaining amount of Rs.9,65,462/- has not been deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be given any expenses that he has incurred for the custom milling of rice for the year 2011-12 and 2012-13. 6. Moreover, it has been pointed out that the petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition, bearing Writ Petition No. 28998 (MB) of 2016, 'M/s Singh Rice Mills Vs. State of U.P. and others', which was disposed of by this Court on 08.12.2016 directing the petitioner to file an application for arbitration in terms of the agreement between the parties. A copy of the order dated 08.12.2016 passed by the Division Bench relying upon the observations made in Writ-C No. 35296 of 2013, 'M/s Maa Bhawani Rice Mill and Another Vs. State of U.P and Others' has been enclosed to the said instructions. WRIC No. 9082 of 2025 2 7. The written instructions are kept on record. 8. We have gone through the order and we find that the petitioner had raised the same issue regarding custom milled rice and shortfall pointed out by the respondent for the year 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. The petitioner has not mentioned filing of Writ Petition, bearing Writ Petition No. 28998 (MB) of 2016, 'M/s Singh Rice Mills Vs. State of U.P. and others', and its disposal by this Court by its order dated 08.12.2016. It has also not been mentioned whether the petitioner actually approached the Arbitrator thereafter. 9. We find no good ground to show interference. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. September 16, 2025 Darpan Sharma WRIC No. 9082 of 2025 3 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- DARPAN SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench