Authorities must decide the petitioner’s representation regarding unlifted government stock within 30 days.

The petitioner entered into an agreement with the Madhya Pradesh Warehousing and Logistic Corporation for the procurement season 2023–24 on 21 April 2023.

Government food grains, principally wheat, remained stored in the petitioner’s warehouse since 2023, with approximately 400–421 metric tonnes allegedly still awaiting lifting by the respondents.

The petitioner made repeated representations requesting removal of the stock, but no decision was taken and the commodities were not lifted.

The petitioner also alleged that an illegal gratification was demanded by officials in connection with lifting the stock, following which a complaint was made and certain officers were allegedly suspended; however, the relevant suspension documents were not placed on record.

The respondents relied on Condition 9.2 of the agreement, contending that the contractual arrangement continued until the stored commodities were finally lifted and that they could lift the stock at their discretion.

The petitioner further contended that rent was payable at approximately ₹4,10,000 per month under the agreement and could not be reduced while the respondents continued occupying the warehouse.

During final hearing, the respondents undertook to decide the petitioner’s pending representation within 30 days.

The Court applied the contractual terms governing storage and lifting of government food grains, particularly Condition 9.2 of the JBS Agreement, under which the agreement remained in force until the stored commodities were finally lifted.

It further applied the contractual principle that, so long as the respondents continued to occupy the petitioner’s warehouse with stored commodities, rent remained payable in accordance with the agreement and could not be reduced merely because the respondents delayed lifting the stock.

In exercising writ jurisdiction, the Court accepted the respondents’ undertaking and directed the competent authority to decide the petitioner’s pending representation within the specified period.

The Court noted that the respondents’ reply relied generally on policy provisions and Condition 9.2 but failed to explain why the food grains had not been lifted despite repeated requests.

The Court also recognised the petitioner’s contention that wheat has a limited shelf life and that continued storage since April 2023 could affect the commodities.

Although the petitioner sought a direct direction for immediate lifting of the stock, the Court disposed of the petition on the basis of the respondents’ categorical undertaking to decide the pending representation within 30 days.

The Court separately observed that continued occupation of the warehouse attracted payment of rent under the agreement, and criticised the respondents’ failure to address that central issue in their reply.

Given the inadequacy of the reply, costs of ₹25,000 were imposed on the Officer-in-Charge of the case.

The Court did not itself direct immediate lifting of the stock but required a reasoned decision on the petitioner’s grievance.

The Court further directed payment of ₹25,000 as costs to the M.P. High Court Bar Association within seven days, to be borne by the Officer-in-Charge, for filing an inadequate and unresponsive reply.