Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:31142-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6622 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Shyam Food Product 160 Purani Naugarh Siddharthnagar, Through Its Proprietor, Shri Shyam Bihari Jaiswal Respondent :- The State Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shalendra Kumar,Sr. Advocate,Vishakha Pande Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Vishakha Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Raj Mohan Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies Department, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, i.e., the respondent no.4; (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to revisit the issue of the petitioner's liability for the alleged non-supply of Custom Milled Rice (CMR) against the paddy and redetermine the same taking into account the finding of the departmental proceedings against Shri Kamaksha Prasad Verma finding him guilty of short supply of paddy to the petitioner;" 3. The petitioner is a rice mill owner and for the hulling of rice, the petitioner was provided some paddy and when there was a shortage of the polished rice which the petitioner supplied to the Food Corporation of India then a recovery proceeding was initiated of Rs. 84,66,918.34/-. On 21.09.2013, against the proceeding initiated vis-a-vis the petitioner, the petitioner had approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by means of Writ-C No. 59863 of 2013 (M/s Shyam Food Products Nawgarh vs. Deputy Regional Marketing Officer & 4 Ors.) and the High Court by its order dated 24.02.2014 directed all the petitioners therein to approach the Arbitrator as was provided in the agreement entered into between the petitioners and the Department. While this arbitration was pending, it was as per the learned counsel for the petitioner discovered that in fact the paddy which was supplied to the petitioner was not the quantity which was allegedly supplied but in fact one Kamaksha Prasad Verma who was the Regional Marketing Officer had supplied lesser paddy than was required to be supplied to the petitioner and the other millers and a recovery of Rs. 3,17,23,827/- was ordered against him. 4. Upon getting this information, the petitioner had on 14.02.2024 approached the Regional Food Controller, Region Basti and prayed that since now it was established that the supply of paddy itself was not done in proper quantity to the petitioner, the recovery against the petitioner be not done. This application of the petitioner was dealt with on 30.09.2024 and thereafter the matter was taken up by the Commissioner and an order was passed on 18.12.2024 by which it was held that the recovery from Kamaksha Prasad Verma was a separate recovery and the petitioner would have to face the recovery which was going on against him separately. 5. The petitioner, through Sri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Vishakha Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner, being aggrieved by the two orders dated 30.09.2024 and 18.12.2024 has approached this Court. 6. Upon a pointed question however being asked with regard to the immediate cause of action, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact there was yet no fresh recovery initiated against the petitioner. 7. Sri Raj Mohan Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner can always raise all these issues, which are being raised here, before the Arbitrator where the entire matter with regard to the earlier recovery was pending. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are definitely of the view that when the arbitrator was seized with the matter of recovery itself which was being done from the petitioner, this new issue of there being a short supply done by Kamaksha Prasad Verma be also raised before the Arbitrator himself. 9. Under such circumstances, no further order is required to be passed. 10. The writ petitioner is accordingly, disposed of. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 M.S. Ansari (Dr. Y.K. Srivastava,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD SAQIB ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad