1 VS,J WP No. 32207 of 2025 APHC010623382025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 32207/2025 Between: 1. CHERUKUWADA INDUSTRIES, CONTRACTORS SRI VENKATA NARASIMHA RAJU RICE MILL REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI CHERUKUWADA SRIRANGANADHA RAJU S/O. CHERUKUWADA NARASIMHA RAJU D. NO. 5-52, R.S NO.929,RECHARLA ROAD, PRATHIPADU VILLAGE, PENTAPADU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR CIVIL SUPPLIES, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. ANDHRA PRADESH CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VIJAYAWADA, NTR 2 VS,J WP No. 32207 of 2025 DISTRICT. 5. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION,NEW DELHI, INDIA. 6. THE DISTRICT CIVIL SUPPLY MANAGER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CIVIL SUPPLY CORPORATION,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Clause 40, G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 22-10-2025 issued by the 1st respondent in so far as with regard to insisting guarantee from other rice millers who are participating paddy procurement operations and also guarantee from President of Rice Miller Associations in the form of Cluster Agreement for the purpose of providing paddy for custom milling is unreasonable, illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct the respondents to set aside the same and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to allot paddy to the petitioner for custom milling of rice by taking sufficient bank guarantee without insisting guarantees from other millers and President of Associations pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:1. V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 3 VS,J WP No. 32207 of 2025 The Court made the following Order: The present writ petition is came to be filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “……….to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Clause 40, G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 22-10-2025 issued by the 1st respondent in so far as with regard to insisting guarantee from other rice millers who are participating paddy procurement operations and also guarantee from President of Rice Miller Associations in the form of Cluster Agreement for the purpose of providing paddy for custom milling is unreasonable, illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct the respondents to set aside the same and pass such other order or order as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 2. The petitioner is Modern Rice Mill which is Micro Enterprises recognized by the Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises. The petitioner had taken the lease of Sri Venkata Narasimha Raju Rice Mill, Racharla Road, Prathipadu Village, Pentapadu Mandal, West Godavari District and updated the same into Modern Rice Mill with advanced machinery and infrastructures. 4 VS,J WP No. 32207 of 2025 4. The 1st respondent has been framing the guidelines from time to time for the purpose of Paddy Procurement Scheme, accordingly the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 24.09.2024 in respect of procurement policy for Khariff marketing season for 2024 - 25. As per the scheme, every paddy farmer, for the purpose of selling their harvest, shall approach Paddy Procurement Centers in the Rythu Seva Kendras of the government in their area. 5. The petitioner’s mill is ready for the commencement of its operation from the month of March-2025 and thus submitted an application on 10.04.2025 to the 3rd respondent seeking registration in Paddy Procurement Portal. As the same was not considered by the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector, the petitioner is constrained to file the W.P.No.28654 of 2025, the said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to initiate appropriate action immediately after receiving the feasibility report in pursuance of the inspection report dated 15.10.2025. In pursuance of the said orders of this court, vide proceedings dated 24.10.2025, the 3rd respondent passed orders stating that the Assistant Supply Officer, West Godavari District submitted inspection report dated 16.10.2025 reporting that the petitioner’s mill is equipped with all acquired infrastructure and submitted affidavit to abide norms fixed by the government and that the 5 VS,J WP No. 32207 of 2025 applicants are willing to furnish bank guarantee and also ready to supply gunny bags for allotment of paddy from Khariff season 2025-26 onwards and further recommended for inclusion of the petitioner in Millers/Traders List. 6. In pursuance of the orders passed by the 3rd respondent, the respondents have registered the petitioner’s Mill in Paddy Procurement Portal. Thereafter, the District Civil Supplies Manager vide circular PROC.No.BGS.1/Khariff/2025-2026 dated 22-10-2025 issued list of rice millers in which the petitioner’s rice mill’s name was not included. On enquiry the petitioner came to know that, the petitioner was supposed to comply the Clause-40 of the G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 22.10.2025 issued by 1st respondent. Since the petitioner has to comply the Clause 40 of the G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 22.10.2025 issued by 1st respondent, the petitioner name was not placed in the list. Challenging the Clause 40 of the G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 22.10.2025, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Clause 40 of the G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 22.10.2025 is as under: 40. Undertaking and Counter-Signing for Guarantee Purposes: “The rice miller shall submit an undertaking about conformity to fair practices and non-participation in any PDS rice related recycling. Such agreement shall be counter-signed by two other rice millers who 6 VS,J WP No. 32207 of 2025 are also participating in the paddy procurement operations, and who shall stand guarantee to the rice miller who is submitting the undertaking.” 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is unable to get his agreement counter signed by two other rice millers who have also participated in the Rice Procurement Operations. As none of them were coming forward and because of the said “Clause”, the petitioner is put to hardship. However, after filling of the present writ petition, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the Joint Collector/ 3rd Respondents on 10.11.2025 requesting him to consider his case on undertaking to provide bank guarantee with high value at a ratio of 1:2 instead of 1:1. 8. On perusal of Clause-40 of G.O.Ms.No.23, every agreement shall be counter signed by two other rice millers who have participated in the Rice Procurement Operations and who shall stand guarantee to the rice miller who is submitting the undertaking. It may not be possible for each and every rice miller to get his agreement counter singed by two other rice millers as nobody would take risk to stand as a guarantee to any other rice miller. As such, this court is of the opinion that, if at all the respondents have imposed these conditions to put a 7 VS,J WP No. 32207 of 2025 check on the supply of mill rice in proper time and also to put check on the black marketing, the respondents are at liberty to impose any such condition on the subject rice miller. 9. In the present case, as the petitioner has already submitted the representation to the 3rd respondent on 10.11.2025 requesting him to consider his case on an undertaking to provide bank guarantee with high value at a ratio of 1:2 instead of 1:1, this court feels it proper to direct the 3rd respondent to pass appropriate order on the representation submitted by the petitioner on 10.11.2025 by permitting him to furnish bank guarantee at a ratio of 1:2 without insisting the petitioner for getting his agreement counter signed by two other rice millers who have participated in the rice procurement process, as per the Cause 40 of G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 22.10.2025. 10. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date : 24-11-2025. JAK/MH 8 VS,J WP No. 32207 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 109 WRIT PETITION NO: 32207/2025 Date: 24.11.2025 JAK/MH