Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. - (1.) CIVIL Miscellaneous application is allowed. Reply filed on behalf of Respondent No. 4 is taken on record. CWP No. 15972 of 2000 The paper book is sizeable. However, the issue is short.
(2.) THE Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "PUN -SUP") supplied paddy to the Petitioner for milling. The common rice, which was prepared after the process of milling was to be delivered to the Food Corporation of India at Kapurthala. The Petitioner claims that the process of milling had been completed by or before August, 31, 2000. It had milled the paddy and made repeated requests to the Food Corporation of India to accept the rice. When the Food Corporation refused to accept it, the Petitioner addressed a communication dated July 19, 2000, to the District Manager of PUNSUP. A copy of this letter has been produced as Annexure P4 with the writ petition. By this letter the third Respondent was informed that the food Corporation of India (in short -the "FCI") has not "accepted the milled rice on one pretext or the other -mainly for want of storage capacity with them. Now the FCI has decided that these rice stocks should be disposed of by the Punjab Government & concerned agencies as they like." The Petitioner further informed the third Respondent that the rice stocks may be lifted as it had no space to keep the stocks. The Direction of the PUN -SUP that the Petitioner should keep the rice and deposit the amount of Rs. 931/ - per quintal was also controverted. It was pointed out that there was no contract in that be -half and that the market rate of the rice was about Rs. 800/ - per quintal and nor Rs. 931/ -. After the letter of July 19, 2000, the Petitioner sent another communication dated August 30, 2000 to the third Respondent. It was pointed out that the paddy was lying milled. "The rice is ready as per specifications -FCI is not ready to accept the same. We have told this thing to each of your officer on duty. It you do not make any arrangement for the acceptance of the rice, then we are not responsible for any damages." Despite this, the Respondents took no action. Hence this petition. The Petitioner prays that the FCI should be directed to lift the rice.
(3.) AT the hearing, it has been submitted by the counsel for the Petitioner that either the Food Corporation or the PUNSUP should take delivery of rice as the Petitioner has no room to store the huge quantity that has accumulated with the passage of time.;