1 APHC010000662026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 49/2026 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, aged 73 years, 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 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 2 pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in alloting meagre quantity of paddy disregarding the milling capacity of the petitioner having allotted higher quantity of paddy to the similarly situated millers is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct the respondents to allot the paddy for custom milling on par with other similarly situated millers within the cluster of Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District for the present and forthcoming seasons and further directed the respondents to accept the bank guarantee of the petitioner with same ratio that the other millers are accepted with other rice millers and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 on par with other similarly situated within the cluster of Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 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 may be pleased to direct the respondents to allocate equal quantity of paddy to the petitioner mill on par with other similar capacity (6 Mt.) mills for Rabi Season 2025 - 26 by suspending the orders passed by 3rd respondent in Lr. No.2/P Proc/Kharif 2025 — 26 dt. 24-01-2026 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MD.SALEEM SC For APSCSC Limited, Vijayawda 2. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 3 The Court made the following order: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in allotting the meager quantity of paddy to the petitioner disregarding his milling capacity and allotting higher quantity of paddy to the similarly situated millers. 2. Heard Sri V.V.Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri MD.Saleem, learned Standing counsel for APSCSC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as per Clause 12 of G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 22.10.2025 the petitioner is entitled to an allotment up to 75% of milling capacity of the miller. He further submitted that, though the capacity of the petitioner’s mill is 6 metric tons per hour and he is entitled for a maximum of 97,200 quintals, the 3rd respondent has allotted only 10,253 quintals to the petitioner. As such prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 4. Learned Standing counsel for APSCSC submitted that, in line with the existing procedure and considering the district’s high milling capacity and low paddy production, only 50% of the target is being allotted to newly established rice mills from the start of procurement activities, with the consent of the Rice Millers Association, to safeguard the interest of all rice millers in the district and there is no such condition to allot 75% of the milling capacity of the miller and in view of the same, 10,253 quintals was allotted to the petitioner. As such prayed to dismiss the writ petition being meritless. 4 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 6. Admittedly, the respondent authorities failed to cite any rule stipulating that a new miller must be allocated less quantity of paddy for milling than the old millers. In the absence of such a rule, the respondents cannot discriminate against a new miller by providing a lower quantity of paddy. However, in order to meet the ends of justice, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: “The respondent authorities are directed to supply the paddy to the petitioner on par with other rice millers with same capacity as per rules in vogue.” Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS