APHC010377272026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE 14th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 20163 OF 2026 Between: 1. Ramtej Agro Products, represented by its Proprietor Seetharam Phani Teja, Rio D.No.7-111, Vijayawada Road, Hanuman Junction, Bapulapadu, Krishna District. ...Petitioner AND 1. A P State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Represented by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Head Office, Ashok Nagar, Bandar Road, Vijayawada, NTR District 520 007. 2. District Civil Supplies Manager, Machilipatnam, Krishna District - 521 001. 3. Joint Collector cum Ex officio Executive Director, AP State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. Krishna District. 4. Central Bank of India, represented by its Branch Manager, Benz Circle Branch Vijayawada, NTR District - 520010 ...Respondents 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 a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in rejecting the custom milled rice (CMR) supplied by the petitioner and the action of the 2 Respondent authorities in trying to forfeit the bank guarantee is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to supply custom milled rice without encashing the bank guarantee and pass such 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 may be pleased to direct the Respondents to accept the custom milled rice (CMR) supplied by the petitioner and pass such 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 3rd Respondent to conduct quality check in the presence of the petitioner and pass such IA NO: 3 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 Respondent No. 1 and 2 herein from encashing the bank guarantee and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: ADAPA RAMYA SAHITHI NAIDU Counsel for the Respondents: MD SALEEM The Court made the following order: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 20163 OF 2026 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in rejecting the custom milled rice (CMR) supplied by the petitioner and the action of the Respondent authorities in trying to forfeit the bank guarantee is wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to supply custom milled rice without encashing the bank guarantee and pass such other order or orders….” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein entered into an agreement with Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited for supply of custom milled rice (CMR) for Khariff Season of 2025-26. He further submits that as per the terms of the agreement, the petitioner supplied 649 Metric tonnes of custom milled rice (CMR). While so, some of the consignments were returned by the respondents on the ground that the said consignments were not in conformity with the specifications of the custom milled rice that were sought to be delivered. He further submits that the respondents issued impugned proceedings alleging that the part of total quantity supplied by the petitioner is not on par with the specifications as envisaged under the agreement as well as Rules and Regulations as issued by the respondent-corporation and Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies, Union 4 of India and accordingly, the same were returned. He submits that the respondent authorities came to the conclusion unilaterally that the subject quantity of custom milled rice is not in accordance with the specifications, without conducting any analysis as required and without following any due procedure as contemplated and also contrary to the circulars/guidelines of the respondents. He further submits that the petitioner herein submitted a detailed representation on 05.08.2026 to the respondent No.2 herein highlighting the non observation of the principles of natural justice as well as due procedure as contemplated and without conducting any analysis regarding quality of the rice as per the specifications as envisaged. Even after receipt of the said representation, the respondents neither considered the same nor passed any orders. Hence, the Writ Petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that so far the petitioner submitted 649 metric tonnes of CMR as per the terms of the agreement out of which 100 metric tonnes were not in accordance with the specifications. He further submits that the respondent authorities meticulously followed the due procedure as contemplated under the Rules and Regulations of the Corporation while identifying the 100 metric tonnes of the CMR. He further submits that the petitioner was issued a notice for collecting the samples and for conducting analysis to come to conclusion whether the subject stock supplied by the petitioner is in accordance with the specifications or not. After completion of the procedure as contemplated, the respondent authorities came to a conclusion that out of the total quantity supplied by the petitioner, in respect of part of quantity i.e., 100 metric tonnes 5 is not in accordance with the specifications and percentage of discoloured and broken rice is more than the permitted percentage hence returned. He also submits that the period of supply of CMR was already completed. The petitioner failed to submit the same within the prescribed time. However since the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent No.2, who is not the competent authority to deal with the request of the petitioner, the petitioner may submit a representation afresh to respondent No.1 for consideration of the same as prayed. 5. Considering the submissions made as well as consent of the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the present Writ Petition can be disposed of, directing the petitioner to submit a representation afresh to the respondent No.1 within a period of one week from today. After such submission, the respondent No.1 is hereby directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, within a period of two (02) weeks, thereafter. 6. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J Date:14.08.2026 NOTE: C.C by Tomorrow (B/o) TPS/BSP 6 08 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 20163 OF 2026 Date:14.08.2026 NOTE: C.C by Tomorrow (B/o) TPS/BSP