ESHWAR TRADERS, vs THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57727
WP No. 22628 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010478222024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 22628 OF 2024 (GM-PDS)
BETWEEN:
1.
ESHWAR TRADERS
NO.2406/227
C/O. N.R. RICE MILL COMPOUND
M.M ROAD, BANNUR
BANNUR TOWN-571 101
T. NARASIPUR TQ
MYSORE DIST.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI. B.H. MAHESH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
2.
R.K. RICE INDUSTRIES
MAIN ROAD, RANGACHARI HUNDI
T. NARASIPUR TQ.-571 101
MYSORE DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI. NAYAZ AHMED KHAN
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
3. FATHIMA AGRO RICE INDUSTRIES
RANGANATHAPURA
MYSORE-BANNUR ROAD
T.N PURA TALUK
MYSORE DIST.-571 102
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI. JAMEEL AHMED KHAN
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
Digitally signed by
PAVITHRA B
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57727
WP No. 22628 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010478222024
4. AZGAR ENTERPRISE
S.R.P ROAD, BANNUR
BANNUR TOWN-571 101
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI. AZGAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
5. SRI. KRISHNA MODERN BINNY MILL
MAREGOWDANA HALLI
BANNUR TOWN-571 101
T. NARASIPUR TQ.
MYSORE DIST.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI. HOMBEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
6. ANNAPURNESHWARI AGRO MILL
KODAGALLI
T. NARASIPUR TALUK
MYSORE DIST.-571 101
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI. K.K. ANIL KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
7.
SEEMA RICE INDUSTRIES
MAIN ROAD
RANGACHARI HUNDI-571 101
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI. FIYAZ AHMED
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
8. ARFA ENTERPRISES
C/O. LAKSHMI RICE MILL
NO.371/321, S.R.P., ROAD
BANNUR-571 101
T. NARASIPUR TQ.
MYSORE DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI. NAYEEM AHMED
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57727
WP No. 22628 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010478222024
9. ELAHI RICE INDUSTRIES
AMBEDKAR NAGAR
K.E.B ROAD, BANNUR-571 101
T.N PURA TALUK, MYSORE DIST.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI. KOTHEJA BI
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
10.
FIYAZ ENTERPRISE
C/O. B.S.K RICE INDUSTRIES
K.E.B ROAD, BANNUR
BANNUR TOWN-571 101
MYSORE DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI. KAUSER AHMED
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
11. SAGAR ENTERPRISE
C/O. BASAVESHWAR MODERN RICE MILL
M.M ROAD, CHAMANAHALLI
BANNUR TOWN-571 101
T. NARASIPUR TQ.
MYSORE DIST.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI. AKBAR AHMED
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
12. KHAN FOOD SUPPLIERS
C/O. M.K. RICE INDUSTRIES
RANGANATHPUR
T. NARASIPUR TQ.
MYSORE DIST.-571 101
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI. IMRAN AHMED KHAN
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
13.
VEERABHADRESHWAR RICE MILL
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR
BYRAPUR VILLAGE
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57727
WP No. 22628 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010478222024
T. NARASIPUR TQ.-571 124
MYSORE DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI. NAGESH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: S P KULKARNI, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI: VASANTHAKUMAR K M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER
AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR FOOD AND CIVIL
SUPPLIES, NO 8 CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FOOD)
MYSORE DISTRICT
MYSORE-570 001
4. THE KARNATAKA FOOD AND CIVIL
SUPPLIES CORPORATION
MYSORE DISTRICT
MYSORE-570 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT MANAGER
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: M SRINIVAS KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI: H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57727
WP No. 22628 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010478222024
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.04.2021 MADE IN
NO.AANASA.47.RPR 2019(30396) PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 IN SO FAR AS DENIAL OF 12 PERCENT
INTEREST ON THE DELAYED PAYMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CHARGES, HEREIN BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS AND
OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY AND JUSTICE (ANNX-K) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners have called in question the order dated
30.04.2021 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-K, insofar
as denial of interest on the delayed payment of transportation
charges.
2. The petitioners in this writ petition are the owners
of the respective rice mills. All the petitioners had entered into
agreements with respondent No.4 for the purpose of
transportation of paddy and rice. Respondent No.4 was
required to release the amount in terms of the agreement
entered into by the petitioners and respondent No.4 as and
when it became payable. There was delay in payment of the
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57727
WP No. 22628 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010478222024
charges for transportation in favour of the petitioners. Though
the amount were required to be paid in the year 2013-14,
2014-15, however, the same was not paid within the stipulated
time, which resulted in the petitioners approaching respondent
No.1 - State Government for direction to release the payment.
3. Respondent No.1 through order dated 30.04.2021
directed respondent No.4 to make payment of transportation
charges in terms of the agreement. The claim of the
petitioners for awarding of interest for the delayed payment
was not considered by respondent No.1. The order dated
30.04.2021 at Annexure-K is under challenge in the present
writ petition only insofar as denial of prayer for interest.
4. Sri S P Kulkarni, learned senior counsel submits that
the order dated 30.04.2021 was passed in respect of 24 rice mills
owners. Out of 24 rice mill owners, 8 owners have filed Writ
Petition No.13133 of 2023 before this Court on the ground that
respondent No.1 while directing payment of transportation
charges has denied the grant of interest for the delayed period.
This Court by order dated 11.06.2024 allowed the said writ
petition in part and directed the respondents
therein to pay
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57727
WP No. 22628 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010478222024
date on which the said payment was required to be made till
the date of actual payment within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
5. The owners of rice mill who had not approached this
Court when the other rice mill owners had filed Writ Petition
No.13133 of 2023 have filed the present writ petition
challenging the very same order dated 30.04.2021 seeking the
very same relief, which this Court has granted in the aforesaid
writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has filed the
statement of objections contending that when this Court passed
the order in Writ Petition No.13133 of 2023, respondent No.4
had no occasion to oppose the writ petition, since respondent
No.4 was also represented by learned AGA. In fact, respondent
No.4 has its own panel of advocates. It is his further
submission that though respondent No.4 has challenged the
order passed in Writ Petition No.13133 of 2023 in Writ Appeal
No.1854 of 2025, the said writ appeal came to be dismissed on
the ground of delay in filing the writ appeal. Though the order
passed by the co-ordinate Bench, so also, the Hon'ble Division
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57727
WP No. 22628 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010478222024
Bench were challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special
Leave to Appeal No.25959 of 2026, however, respondent No.4
did not succeed in the said appeal.
7. It is his further submission that since the order
passed in the earlier writ petition is without hearing respondent
No.4 and the order passed by the Hon'ble Division bench is only
on the ground of delay, the benefit of the order passed in Writ
Petition No.13133 of 2023 cannot be extended to the
petitioners herein, who have approached this Court belatedly.
8. Learned High Court Government Pleader adopted
the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.4.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the
materials on record.
10. It is not in dispute that the impugned order dated
30.04.2021 was passed on the petition filed by 24 rice mill
owners. It is not in dispute that there was long delay in
payment of transportation charges. The order at Annexure-K
dated 30.04.2021 was accepted by respondent No.4 and the
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57727
WP No. 22628 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010478222024
payment have been made to the respective owners of rice mills
on 21.11.2022. By then, there was a delay of more than 7
years in making payment.
11. It is in the said circumstances, 8 out of 24 rice mill
owners have approached this Court and this Court considering
the fact that the petitioners therein were deprived of their
legitimate right of receiving their dues and making use of the
same for over a period of 7 years, considering the provision of
Section 34 of CPC, so also, the Interest Act, 1978 had allowed
the writ petition directing the concerned respondents to pay
interest at 9% per annum from the date of actual payment to
be made, till the date of payment of the amount.
12. The order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court was unsuccessfully challenged by respondent No.4 before
the Hon'ble Division Bench, so also, before the Hon'ble Apex
Court. The submission of learned counsel for respondent No.4
that since writ appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay,
therefore, the benefit of order passed by the co-ordinate Bench
of this Court, cannot be extended to the petitioners, cannot be
accepted and accordingly, rejected. Whether or not, the appeal
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57727
WP No. 22628 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010478222024
was dismissed on merits or on the ground of delay, the order
passed in Writ Petition No.13133 of 2023 has become final and
respondent No.4 is bound to implement the said order.
13. The claim of the petitioners is also on par with the
petitioners in Writ Petition No.13133 of 2023. Since the claim
of the petitioners is similar to the claim of the petitioners in the
aforesaid writ petition, petitioners are also entitled to the same
relief, which has been granted by this Court in the aforesaid
writ petition. No exception can be made in respect of the claim
of the petitioners only on the ground that the present writ
petition is filed after one year from the date of disposal of the
earlier writ petition.
14. In the result, the following:
ORDER
allowed.
(i) The writ petition is
(ii) The order dated 30.04.2021 passed by respondent
No.1 at Annexure-K insofar as denying the interest payable to
the petitioners is hereby quashed.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57727
WP No. 22628 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010478222024
(iii) The respondents are directed to pay interest at 9%
per annum on the amount which has been paid on 21.11.2022
from the date it became due and payable until the date of
actual payment i.e., 21.11.2022.
(iv) The respondents to pay interest payable in terms of
this order within three months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of the order.
Sd/-
(T.P.VIVEKANANDA)
JUDGE
BGN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46