Date on which Order was reserved : 10.3.2026

Date on which Order is pronounced : 17.6.2026

Date on which Order is uploaded : 17.6.2026

APHC010511092024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3327]

WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO: 26620/2024 & Batch

Between:

Kanyaka Traders ...PETITIONER

AND

Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. T V P SAI VIHARI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

2. O UDAYA KUMAR

3. MD.SALEEM SC For APSCSC Limited, Vijayawda

2

THE HON‘BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.26620 of 2024, 26520 of 2024,

26521 of 2024, 26522 of 2024, 26525 of 2024,

26526 of 2024, 26527 of 2024, 26533 of 2024,

26534 of 2024, 26535 of 2024, 26543 of 2024,

26549 of 2024, 26550 of 2024, 26551 of 2024,

26619 of 2024, 26621 of 2024, 237 of 2025,

239 of 2025, 242 of 2025, 259 of 2025, 270 of 2025,

277 of 2025, 280 of 2025, 286 of 2025, 287 of 2025,

289 of 2025, 292 of 2025, 297 of 2025, 306 of 2025,

308 of 2025, 316 of 2025, 319 of 2025, 320 of 2025,

339 of 2025, 342 of 2025, 345 of 2025, 347 of 2025,

348 of 2025, 349 of 2025, 351 of 2025, 354 of 2025,

356 of 2025, 359 of 2025, 360 of 2025, 364 of 2025,

367 of 2025, 386 of 2025 & 474 of 2025

COMMON ORDER:

Writ Petition Nos.26620 of 2024, 26520 of 2024,

26521 of 2024, 26522 of 2024, 26525 of 2024,

26526 of 2024, 26527 of 2024, 26533 of 2024,

26534 of 2024, 26535 of 2024, 26543 of 2024,

26549 of 2024, 26550 of 2024, 26551 of 2024,

26619 of 2024 & 26621 of 2024

These Writ Petitions are filed seeking –(a) to declare

letter dated 02.09.2024, addressed by FCI Regional Office

3

to FCI Divisional Office, directing to get the stocks supplied

by the petitioners for the crop season KMS 2022 -23

replaced, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently set-

aside the same; (b) to declare the action of the respondents

in not allowing the petitioners to supply FRK rice and

banning the petitioners from supplying FRK rice as illegal

and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents to

implement the letter dated 24.04.2024 issued by the FCI

Regional Office to the FCI Divisional Office, and allow the

petitioners to supply FRK rice for the Season; & (c) to

declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the

bills from FY 2016-17 relating to the respective amounts to

the respective petitioners, as illegal and arbitrary and

consequently direct the respondents to release the aforesaid

respective overdue amounts with interest.

Writ Petition Nos.345 of 2025 and 356 of 2025

These Writ Petitions are filed seeking to declare letters

dated 13.11.2024 and 02.09.2024, both addressed by t he

FCI Regional Office to the FCI Divisional Office, directing to

get the stocks supplied by the petitioners for the crop

4

season KMS 2022-23 replaced, as illegal and arbitrary, and

consequently set-aside the same; and to declare the action

of the respondents in not releasing the bills for respective

Financial Years relating to the respective amounts to the

respective petitioners, as illegal and arbitrary and

consequently direct the respondents to release the aforesaid

respective overdue amounts with interest.

Writ Petition Nos. 237 of 2025, 239 of 2025, 242 of 2025,

286 of 2025, 287 of 2025, 289 of 2025, 292 of 2025,

297 of 2025, 306 of 2025, 308 of 2025, 319 of 2025 &

320 of 2025

These Writ Petitions are filed seeking –(a) to declare

letter dated 22.10.2024, addressed by the respective FCI

Divisional Office to 3

rd respondent, directing to get the

stocks supplied by the petitioners for the crop season KMS

2022-23 replaced, as illegal and arbitrary, and

consequently set-aside the same; (b) to declare letter dated

02.09.2024, addressed by FCI Regional Office to FCI

Divisional Office, directing to get the stocks supplied by the

petitioners for the crop season KMS 2022-23 replaced, as

illegal and arbitrary, and consequently set-aside the same;

5

& (c) to declare the action of the respondents in not

releasing the bills from FY 2016-17 to FY 2023-24 relating

to the respective amounts to the respective petitioners, as

illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the

respondents to release the aforesaid respective overdue

amounts with interest.

Writ Petition Nos. 259 of 2025, 270 of 2025, 277 of 2025,

280 of 2025, 316 of 2025, 339 of 2025, 342 of 2025,

347 of 2025, 348 of 2025, 351 of 2025, 354 of 2025,

359 of 2025, 360 of 2025, 364 of 2025, 367 of 2025,

386 of 2025 & 474 of 2025

These Writ Petitions are filed seeking –(a) to declare

letter dated 15.10.2024, addressed by respective FCI

Divisional Office to the respective petitioners, directing

them to replace the respective stocks supplied by them for

the crop season KMS 2022-23, as illegal and arbitrary, and

consequently set-aside the same; (b) to declare letter dated

02.09.2024, addressed by FCI Regional Office to FCI

Divisional Office, directing to get the respective stocks

supplied by the petitioners for the crop season KMS 2022-

23 replaced, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently set-

aside the same; & (c) to declare the action of the

6

respondents in not releasing the bills for respective

Financial Years relating to the respective amounts to the

respective petitioners, as illegal and arbitrary and

consequently direct the respondents to release the aforesaid

respective overdue amounts with interest.

Writ Petition No. 349 of 2025

This Writ Petition is filed seeking (a) to declare letter

dated 16.10.2024, addressed by FCI Divisional Office to the

petitioner, directing to replace the stocks supplied by it for

the crop season KMS 2022-23, as illegal and arbitrary, and

consequently set-aside the same; (b) to declare letter dated

02.09.2024, addressed by FCI Regional Offi ce to FCI

Divisional Office, directing to get the stocks supplied by the

petitioner for the crop season KMS 2022-23 replaced, as

illegal and arbitrary, and consequently set-aside the same;

& (c) to declare the action of the respondents in not

releasing the bills for FY 2016-17 to FY 2023-24 for an

amount of Rs.84,24,605/- to the petitioner, as illegal and

arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to

release the aforesaid overdue amount with interest.

7

2. At the request of all the counsel and since the

issues involved in all the Writ Petitions are one and the

same, these Writ Petitions are taken up together for

disposal, by way of this Common Order.

3. The facts, in brief, which led to filing of the

present Writ Petitions are as follows.

a) Petitioners are registered partnership firms

engaged in business of rice. They entered into contracts for

supply of Custom Milled Rice (CMR) to 2

nd respondent. 1

st

respondent, with an intention to improve the quality of

CMR, introduced the scheme of fortification of rice so that

fortified rice would be supplied through the targeted Public

Distribution System (PDS), and pursuant to the same, 1

st

respondent issued Guidelines on quality control of Fortified

Rice Kernels (FRK) which enumerated that the ratio for

blending CMR by way of fortified kernels is 1:100 by using

automatic blending machines. According to the petitioners,

they complied with the said norms and had been supplying

CMR to 2

nd respondent.

8

b) It is further stated that 3

rd respondent procures

paddy and fortified kernels and supplies the same to

petitioners, and thereafter, the petitioners blend the paddy

and supply CMR to 2

nd respondent through 3

rd respondent,

and accordingly 3

rd respondent releases the payments. It

is further stated that while supplying the fortified kernels,

3

rd respondent conducts test on the said material, and if

the material passes all the tests, then only the same would

be supplied to the Rice Mills, and only such fortified kernels

would be used in blending process. It is further stated

that the petitioners delivered FRK rice to 2

nd respondent,

who accepted the same without raising any objections, and

at the time of delivery, authorities of respondents 2 and 3

verified and accepted the same.

c) On 04.05.2023, 2

nd respondent issued proceedings

vide Lr. No. QC 2(2)/FRK/KMS 2022 -2023/LAB, stating

that the samples collected from the FRK rice supplied by

the petitioners were sent to Ministry for retesting of

micronutrients (fortificants) Folic Acid, Vitamin B12 and

iron content, and it was found that the said samples were

9

not in conformity with FSSAI limits, and hence, the

petitioners were directed to replace the stocks. Vide

proceedings dated Lr. No. RO-AP37011/1/2023-QC-RO-AP

dated 08.08.2023, 2

nd respondent directed 3

rd respondent

to take up the said matter with millers concerned and to

replace the stocks and also further directed to stop further

delivery of stocks from petitioners.

d) It is further stated that the petitioners, along

with other millers, approached 2

nd respondent authorities

and informed that the millers have nothing to do with any

defects in the fortified kernels and they were using the

same machines supplied by 3

rd respondent, and that the

fortified kernels supplied by 3

rd respondent were used in

blending and FRK rice supplied, and further informed that

the samples which were taken for test, were not taken in

their presence, which is in violation of principles of natural

justice.

e) It is further stated that a meeting was conducted

with the officials of respondents 2 and 3 and the millers,

wherein it was concluded that the concerns raised by the

10

millers regarding their involvement on the failure of micro-

nutrient content would be forwarded to the appropriate

authorities for consideration, and that the Divisional

Manager would co-operate with the relevant parties to

ensure that sampling procedures comply with the

established Guidelines, including presence of millers during

sampling and retesting in FSSAI-Notified Lab, and the

deliveries from the millers into the central pool would be

put on hold until completion of retesting.

f) It is further stated that samples were collected by

2

nd respondent authorities on 09.04.2024 and the same

were sent for retesting, and on 15.04.2024, the Lab

concerned gave report stating that FRK rice supplied by the

petitioners was in accordance with the norms and

guidelines. Despite the said report, 2

nd respondent

authorities did not allow petitioners to supply FRK rice for

that current season, and being aggrieved by the said action

of 2

nd respondent, a representation was made to the 3

rd

respondent by Millers Association, requesting to allow the

petitioners and similarly placed millers for supply of FRK

11

rice to 2

nd respondent. Vide proceedings dated Lr. No. RO

AP-37011/1/2023-QC-RO AP, dated 24.04.2024, 2

nd

respondent directed 3

rd respondent to accept the CMR from

the petitioners, as the retesting results revealed that the

samples were found to be well within the prescribed limits,

and that the millers have to abide by the final decision to

be taken by the higher authorities on re-tested fortified rice

stocks. But, despite the aforesaid proceedings, authorities

of 2

nd and 3

rd respondent did not allow petitioners to

supply. The authorities also did not release the pending

bills from 2016, inspite of respective representations made

by the millers and did not pass any final order in respect to

re-tested fortified rice stocks.

g) The petitioners submitted representations to the

District Manager of 3

rd respondent requesting for release of

the respective amounts due to them, from respective

Financial Years, which was not released for the reasons

best known to them and the authorities were silent on the

said representations. The petitioners invested its hard-

earned money in the rice mill. The petitioners are not

12

engaged in the free-market business and as such if the

petitioners are not allowed to supply FRK, they would be

put to serious irreparable loss.

h) It is further stated that 2

nd respondent, without

passing the final orders, as stated i n their earlier

correspondence, issued the impugned letters directing to

replace the FRK stock at the cost of the millers, stating that

the results in Department of Food and Public Distribution

(DFPD) letter are final and cannot be challenged by any

agency or stake holders, without giving any reasons, which

is arbitrary and illegal as 1

st sample was collected in the

absence of the petitioners, and the samples collected in the

presence of the petitioners cleared the test. Therefore, the

said orders being cryptic and without any specific reason

are bad in law and not maintainable in the eyes of law.

Hence, it is prayed to allow the Writ Petitions.

4. 2

nd respondent filed counter affidavits, denying

the material averments made in the writ affidavits and

contending inter alia as follows.

13

a) 2

nd respondent, being a statutory body established

under the Food Corporations Act, 1964, is responsible for

ensuring the procurement, storage, and distribution of

foodgrains under the PDS as per the Guidelines issued by

the Government of India , and that the acts of 2

nd

respondent are as per various Operational Guidelines,

Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), and directives

issued by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and

Public Distribution, ensuring quality and nutrit ional

standards for foodgrains supplied under the PDS, and that

the impugned letters were issued strictly in accordance

with the aforesaid Guidelines.

b) It is further stated that fortified rice plays a vital

role in addressing the issue of micronutrient deficiencies,

by enhancing nutritional quality of rice, a staple food for

65% of population, and that rice fortification, a scientifically

validated, cost-effective and scalable intervention, involves

blending pulverised milled rice with a premix of essential

micronutrients, followed by extrusion to produce FRK.

These kernels are then mixed with unfortified rice at a

14

1:100 ratio, creating fortified rice that retains the aroma,

taste and texture of regular rice. The Government of India

incorporated rice fortification into the National Nutrition

Mission (Poshan Abhiyan), and under a centrally sponsored

scheme, fortified rice is distributed across the country

through PDS, Mid-Day Meals, ICDS, by ensuring the

quality standards established by FSSAI under the

Fortification of Foods Regulations, 2018, to ensure safe and

effective implementation of the said schemes. 2

nd

respondent further explained the highlights in respect to

the Guidelines for making fortified rice, the nutritional

standards for FRK and Fortified Rice per Kilogram, the

responsibilities and accountability of 2

nd respondent in

ensuring the quality and standards of the fortified rice, and

the process of sampling and appeals.

c) It is further stated that there is no arbitrariness

or illegality in the acts of this respondent, and there is no

agreement between the petitioners and the FCI. It is

further stated that the contractual obligations governing

the fortification process lie between the petitioners and 3

rd

15

respondent, and 2

nd respondent has no direct agreement

with petitioners and is not bound by any alleged obligations

as stated in the Writ Petition, and that compliance with

fortification standards remains the primary responsibility of

the petitioners.

d) It is further stated that the rice fortification

scheme is a centrally sponsored initiative designed to

enhance nutritional intake, and that the Operational

Guidelines, SOPs, including the Quality Management

Protocols for FRK dated 15.03.2022, explicitly mandate

stringent quality control measures at various levels, and

the actions of 2

nd respondent are fully in line with these

prescribed procedures.

e) 2

nd respondent denied allegation that stocks of

the petitioners were never sent to the Ministry by the FCI,

and stated that in July, 2023, a joint team from the

Ministry and 2

nd respondent authorities collected samples

during their mandatory inspections and those samples

were taken by the Ministry for testing at FSSAI-Notified

NABL-Accredited Laboratories, in accordance with the SOP

16

dated 13.12.2022, and the results of the said tests were

communicated in October, 2023, which indicated that the

stocks collected from petitioners did not meet the

prescribed standards, which required regulatory

intervention. It is further stated that the responsibility for

ensuring the quality and safety of the FRK lies solely with

the petitioners, and that physical inspections and quality

tests conducted on the stock collected from the petitioners‘

revealed deviations in micronutrient levels, necessitating

directives for stock replacement as per the SOP dated

15.03.2022, warranting corrective action to maintain the

quality standards prescribed under the fortification

programme. It is further stated that the sample collection

process was conducted jointly by the authorities of

respondents 2 and 3, strictly adhering to the SOP dated

15.03.2022 and the testing was conducted at the NABL-

Accredited Laboratory, and 3

rd respondent exercised its

available options under the said SOP, including the appeal

and review mechanism, which reaffirmed the non -

compliance of the petitioners‘ stocks.

17

f) It is further stated that the averment with regard

to timeline of retesting is misrepresented and that the

retesting samples were collected on 31.01.2024, and the

results were duly communicated to 3

rd respondent.

Admittedly, as per Ministry‘s letter dated 10.06.2024, the

retesting results hold no validity as the samples collected

earlier failed to meet the standards under the DRDF

Guidelines, and accordingly it directed the replacement of

non-complaint stocks, therefore, the acts of 2

nd respondent

were in the best interest of public health and safety. It is

further stated that all the actions taken were in full

compliance with the prescribed guidelines, procedures, and

regulatory frameworks, and affirm that the petitioners,

having failed to ensure the quality of FRK as per the

mandated standards, cannot now seek relief under the

pretext of procedural irregularities that do not exist. It is

further stated that the directives for replacement of stocks

were issued based on test results from DFPD, which

confirms non-compliance with nutritional parameters, and

that non-adherence to the Guidelines, including random

18

testing of FRK, contributed to rejection of the stocks. It is

stated that failure to replace these stocks would lead to

wastage of public funds and hinder efficient utilization of

resources earmarked for public.

g) 2

nd respondent cited various legal precedents, in

support of its acts and contentions. Hence, it is prayed to

dismiss the Writ Petitions and vacate the interim orders

passed in the Writ Petitions.

5. Respondent No.3 - Andhra Pradesh State Civil

Supplies Corporation Limited (APSCSC Limited), filed

counter affidavit, deposed by Dr. Manazir Jeelani Samoon,

Vice Chairman & Managing Director, in W.P. No. 26520 of

2024 on 13.8.2025. Mr. MD. Saleem, learned Standing

Counsel for APSCSC Limited filed a Memo, adopting the

said counter affidavit in all other Writ Petitions. In the

counter affidavit, 3

rd respondent denied the material

averments in the affidavits filed in support of the Writ

Petitions and contended inter alia as follows.

a) The petitioners delivered CMR to 2

nd respondent,

and the fortified rice stocks delivered by the petitioners

19

were subjected to fortificant analysis by the Regional Office

of FCI, wherein non -conformity with the required

specifications was indicated. It is further stated that

following this, an appeal was filed with the DFPD seeking a

review of the results; that the review samples of fortified

rice, tested for fortificants were again found non -

conforming in both the first and second appeal samples

referred to the Ministry; that as a result, the authorities

concerned directed the millers to replace the non -

conforming stocks within 24 hours, failing which it was

made clear that there would be suspension of further stock

deliveries by the millers.

b) It is further stated that as per the instructions of

DFPD, 2

nd respondent-FCI instructed the rice millers

concerned responsible for replacing the defective stocks

delivered by them, failing which they would be banned from

participating in custom milling of paddy for the Central

Pool for KMS 2024 -25, and additionally, the amount

equivalent to the value of the stocks would be deducted

from the payments due to 3

rd respondent.

20

c) It is stated that 3

rd respondent procures FRKs

from manufacturers, ensuring rigorous quality control, and

each batch undergoes testing at FSSAI -Notified NABL

Accredited Food Laboratories prior to delivery, and it

conducts random cross -verifications by sending FRK

samples to the said accredited Laboratories to ensure

quality compliance. It is further stated that micro-nutrient

content of the FRK supplied by 3

rd respondent consistently

met the required standards, which were found to be within

the acceptable limits, and that after handing over of the

FRKs to the miller, it is not known whether the same

kernels were used in blending process by the millers or not;

that 2

nd respondent allocates FRK based on the Certificate

of Analysis (CoA) furnished by the FRK suppliers, and as

per the SOP dated 13.12.2022, it is for the ricer millers to

cross-verify the sanctity of FRK supplied by conducting

random tests of FSSAI -Notified NABL Accredited

Laboratories.

d) It is further stated that 3

rd respondent accepted

fortified rice based on physical analysis (in terms of

21

blending percentage of FRK i.e. ranging from 0.90% to

1.20%), whereas the results communicated by DFPD are

done on the basis of chemical analysis. It is stated that

2

nd respondent directed to replace the FRK stock or else

equivalent sum would be recovered, apart from storage

charges. It is further stated that as 2

nd respondent

withheld the amount for CMR deliveries, the mills

incidentals are to be withheld by 3

rd respondent till

settlement of the issue to avoid loss to the Corporation.

Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petitions.

6. Respondent No.1 filed counter affidavits denying

the material averments in the writ affidavits and contending

inter alia as follows.

a) Fortification of rice and its distribution under

the PDS to address the anaemia and micronutrient

deficiency in our country, is a Centrally Sponsored Pilot

Scheme approved by the Government of India, and the

Department of Food and Public Distribution (DFPD), in

consultation with other Departments, decided to scale up

the distribution of fortified rice in all Integrated Child

22

Development Scheme (ICDS) and PM POSHAN (erstwhile

MDM scheme) schemes, from April 2021, in a phased

manner leveraging domestic supply chain through 2

nd

respondent, and the objectives of the said schemes are to

provide FRK with good quality and standard and curtail

nutritional deficiencies.

b) It is further stated that the DFPD, vide SOP

dated 15.03.2022 for Quality Management Protocols for

FRKs, defined the responsibility of all the stakeholders,

including Rice Millers and the State Government. The

responsibilities are further clarified vide Operational

Guidelines on Quality Control for Fortified Rice Kernels and

Fortified Rice, dated 13.12.2022. It is stated that the rice

millers have to cross-check the sanctity of FRK supplied by

the FRK manufacturer/supplier by testing a sample at an

FSSAI-Notified NABL Accredited Laboratory on a random

basis.

c) It is further stated that the samples were drawn

by the Storage and Research Division of the DFPD as a part

of its routine inspection and as provided under the SOP,

23

and the same were forwarded to the Referral Laboratory of

FSSAI for micronutrient level testing, wherein the samples

were found not in accordance with the standard/range of

micro-nutrients {viz. iron, Vitamin B9 (folic acid) and

Vitamin B12} as notified by the FSSAI.

d) It is further stated that in respect of samples

which were forwarded for testing of micronutrient levels,

under appeal and review procedure, the samples were

tested for three times viz. by the FCI during its quality

check of 10% stock procured through FSSAI -Notified

Accredited Laboratory as per the SOP, and as the said

samples failed in micronutrient analysis, another set of

samples was sent by the FCI under an appeal procedure to

DFPD for micronutrient testing, and as the said samples

again failed in micronutrient testing, third set of samples

were again sent to DFPD by the State Government under

review procedure, which were again tested at the Referral

Laboratory of FSSAI, where the samples were again

declared as failed in micronutrient content; that the

samples were tested thrice and were found not in

24

accordance with the standard/range of micronutrients

notified by the FSSAI.

e) It is stated that the results furnished by the

referral Laboratory are final and they cannot be challenged

by any Stake-holders/State Agencies.

f) It is further stated that a sample is declared as

‗failed‘ only when it does not comply with the wide range of

fortificants notified by the FSSAI in order to address the

inconsistency in results, and that a tolerance limit of minus

10% of the declared total value/result is also allowed for

the purpose of compliance and analysis at any point of

time, provided that the maximum limit of added

micronutrients specified in Schedule-I has to be complied

with.

g) It is further stated that the Ministry is

responsible for monitoring of food grains and it formulates

Policies, Schemes, Guidelines and SOPs for the

procurement of food grains that are being implemented by

way of procuring agencies , and the operational

responsibility of the implementation of such Policies,

25

Guidelines and SOPs lies with 2

nd respondent, respective

State Agencies and other agencies, if any. Hence, it is

prayed to dismiss the Writ Petitions and vacate the interim

orders passed in the Writ Petitions.

7. On 23.02.2026, 2

nd respondent filed a Memo in

W.P. No. 26520 of 2024, praying to receive and take on

record, the documents enclosed along with the said Memo

viz. Email correspondence, test results of stocks pertaining

to the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 26533 of 2024, 26520 of

2024, 26534 of 2024 and 26619 of 2024, which fall under

10% mandatory inspection, as additional material papers.

It is stated in the said Memo that the said Writ

Petitions come under SOP dated 15.03.2023 and the stocks

covered under the said Writ Petitions pertain to stocks

found BRL in Micronutrients, and accordingly, the same

were rejected. It is further stated by 3

rd respondent-

APSCSCL availed 1

st Appeal as per the SOP dated

15.03.2023, but the appellate authority confirmed the

same, and 3

rd respondent-APSCSCL requested for 2

nd

appeal as per SOP dated 15.03.2023, but the said samples

26

again failed. It is further stated that the results of review

sample tested at referral /appellate Laboratories are final

and cannot be challenged by any stakeholder/agencies,

and hence, there is no procedural violation nor violation of

principles of natural justice.

It is further stated that the aforesaid facts were not

stated in the averments in the aforesaid Writ Petitions and

in the counter affidavit of the 3

rd respondent also, the

aforesaid facts could not be mentioned as the documents

were not handed over to the counsel, and at the time of

preparing for finalising of the Writ Petitions, the same were

brought to the notice of the counsel and that the said

documents are essential for proper adjudication of the

issues involved in the aforesaid Writ Petitions. Hence, the

Memo. In view of the reasons stated therein, the Memo is

taken on record.

8. An affidavit, deposed by Sri S. Dilli Rao, Vice

Chairman and Managing Director of 3

rd respondent-

APSCSC Limited on 03.03.2026, has been filed in W.P. No.

26520 of 2024 on 05.03.2026, stating inter alia that the

27

test results found in inter-field lab in respect of the

micronutrient parameters in the rice stock pertaining to

rice mills which are petitioners in W.P. Nos. 26533 of 2024,

26520 of 2024, 26534 of 2024 and 26619 of 2024 , are

abnormally higher than the prescribed upper permissible

limits, and such disproportionate variation, prima facie,

indicates serious inconsistencies in testing methodology

thereby rendering reliability and validity of the said test

results questionable. It is further stated that the test

results in interfiled lab, in 1

st appeal and in 2

nd appeal,

pertaining to the three micronutrients, do not correspond

or match across the three separate rounds of testing, and

such material inconsistency in the analytical outcomes

clearly indicates lack of uniformity and reliability in the

testing process. It is further stated that vide 2

nd

respondent-FCI letter dated 12.01.2024, resampling of

fortified rice stocks which failed in 10% stack testing and

other inspections, was undertaken, and the samples were

redrawn from failed stocks in the presence of rice millers

and APSCSCL staff by FCI officials, and when the same

28

were tested in the notified laboratories, the same were

found to be within prescribed standards, and that the

Regional Officer of FCI forwarded the said test results to the

FCI Headquarters seeking permission for liquidation of the

stocks concerned; that surprisingly, vide letter dated

23.08.2024, the FCI Headquarters, relying upon the

communication dated 10.06.2024, issued by DFPD,

informed that results communicated by the DFPD shall be

treated as final and declined to consider the resampled test

results, and the delayed issuance of such clarification,

despite prior knowledge of the resampling exercise already

done, resulted in procedural inconsistency and avoidable

administrative ambiguity. It is further stated that the

DFPD has not furnished Certificates of Analysis, instead a

communication containing tabulated statement of test

results was provided, without specifying - the details of the

laboratory where the testing was conducted, the testing

methodology adopted or the applicable standards followed;

that in view of the same, the authenticity, traceability, and

technical validity of the reported results cannot be properly

29

verified, and hence, DFPD be directed to consider the

retested results as valid and accord necessary permission

for liquidation of the concerned stocks in accordance with

law in order to avoid irreparable loss to 3

rd respondent-

APSCSCL. Stating so, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ

Petitions.

9. Sri K.S. Murthy, learned senior counsel,

appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioners,

contended that the petitioners do not manufacture Fortified

Rice Kernels (FRK) or they have no control over its

composition or micro-nutrient levels; that the role of rice

millers is limited as per the ope rational framework

governing the fortified rice supply, to the extent of milling

the paddy and blending FRK in the prescribed ratio 1:100

using blending machines in the presence and supervision

of officials of State Agency; that after the blending process,

the stock is inspected and accepted by the State Agency;

that FRKs were supplied by 3

rd respondent-APSCSC

Limited to the petitioners, and that the responsibility of the

petitioners, being millers, is limited only to ensure delivery

30

of fortified rice, blended with the specified ratio of FRK to

Custom Milled Rice (CMR), and the petitioners are not

accountable for the micro-nutrient content, as FRKs are

supplied to them by 3

rd respondent-APSCSC Limited.

It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel

that the fortified rice was milled during KMS 2022-23, the

blending ratio was verified by the State Agency and the

stock was accepted and delivered to FCI, but, after lapse of

substantial time and after prolonged storage, 3

rd

respondent authorities, without any notice or intimation to

the petitioners, drew random samples from its godowns in

the absence of petitioners, and the same is contrary to the

procedure prescribed and violative of principles of natural

justice. It is submitted that even otherwise, the

micronutrient levels in fortified rice originate exclusively

from the FRKs, which are supplied by 3

rd respondent along

with quality certificates, and the petitioners have no role in

determining the micronutrient content, except mechanically

blending in prescribed ratio.

31

It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel

that the authorities themselves acknowledged that the

initial testing results were inconsistent and fresh sampling

was necessary, and accordingly, samples were redrawn

subsequently in the presence of the millers, and when the

same were tested, the reports confirmed that the

micronutrient values were within the prescribed limits and

therefore the stock was also accepted; that having

undertaken the said exercise, the authorities now cannot

contend that SOP does not provide for re -sampling,

especially when they themselves agreed that the initial

testing results were inconsistent.

It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel

that the fortified rice procured from the petitioners during

the relevant procurement season was diverted for ethanol

production, as per the policy decision of the Central

Government, and the said stock has not entered consumer

supply chain, and in such a case, the alleged deficiency in

micronutrient levels becomes irrelevant; that use of FRK

fortified rice in the PDS has been discontinued. It is

32

contended that when the petitioners are neither

manufacturers of the FRKs nor have any control over its

composition, and when the stock was not used for human

consumption, the impugned acts of the respondents are

untenable and hence, it is prayed to allow the Writ

Petitions.

10. On the other hand, Sri Challa Dhanunjaya,

learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for

respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the petitioners-rice

millers in W.P. Nos. 26533 of 2024, 26619 of 2024, 26534

of 2024 and 26520 of 2024, would fall under 10%

mandatory inspection and these cases would come under

the Standard Operating Procedure for Quality Management

Protocols for Fortified Rice Kernels and Fortified Rice

formulated by the DFPD dated 15.03.2022 , as the stocks

drawn from the rice millers in the aforesaid Writ Petitions

were found Beyond Rejection Limit (BRL) in micronutrients,

by the primary authority and accordingly the stocks were

rejected. He further submits that 3

rd respondent

Corporation availed the remedy of Appeal against the

33

rejection, as contemplated under the Procedure for Appeal

dated 15.03.2023, and the appellate authority also

confirmed that the stocks would fall under BRL; that 3

rd

respondent Corporation also preferred review against the

Appeal, as per the Procedure for Appeal dated 15.03.2023,

and the results of the review also confirmed that the said

stocks would fall under BRL. He further submits that as

per the Procedure for Appeal dated 15.03.2023, the results

of the review sample tested at referral appellate Labs of the

Ministry are final and cannot be challenged either by the

Agencies/Stakeholders. It is his further submission that

the SOP dated 15.03.2022 and the Procedure for Appeal

dated 15.03.2023 are binding on the all parties to the Writ

Petitions; that the respondents 1 and 2 adhered to the

procedure contemplated thereunder; that having availed

the remedies available under the same and failed, the

petitioners therein cannot now contend about the alleged

violation of principles of natural justice; that as per

Procedure for Appeal dated 15.03.2023, the results of

review samples tested at referral/appellate labs of the

34

Ministry are final and cannot be challenged by any

Agencies/Stakeholders, and action has to be taken based

on the report of the Ministry, as such he prayed to dismiss

W.P. Nos. 26533 of 2024, 26619 of 2024, 26534 of 2024

and 26520 of 2024 in limine.

11. It is further contended by the learned Additional

Solicitor General of India that as per the Standard

Operating Procedure for Monitoring Quality of Food Grains,

Stocks procured under the Decentralised Procurement

(DCP) Scheme issued by the DFPD dated 16.07.2021, a

surprise inspection can be conducted at any time by the

joint team constituted by the Ministry, without giving any

prior notice to the concerned authorities of the State

Government; that in exercise of the said powers, a surprise

inspection was conducted by the DFPD with regard to the

stocks of the rice millers in the Writ Petitions and the

samples drawn by the team were tested at FSSAI -Notified

NABL-Accredited Laboratories, where it was found that the

said samples were not in conformity with the limits

prescribed by FSSAI. It is further contended that the DFPD

35

strictly acted in accordance with the SOP dated

16.07.2021, whereunder, no notice is required before

conducting the surprise inspection, as such, having failed

to meet the prescribed limits prescribed by the FSSAI, the

petitioners cannot now contend about the alleged violation

of principles of natural justice.

He further contended that as per Annexure-2 of the

Operation Guidelines on Quality Control FRKs and Fortified

Rice dated 13.12.2022, it is the duty of the rice millers to

cross-check the sanctity of the FRK supplied by the FRK

manufacturer/supplier by testing a sample at FSSAI -

Notified NABL-Accredited Laboratory on random basis. He

submits that as per the Operational Guidelines dated

13.12.2022, there is bounden duty on the part of the rice

millers to cross-check the sanctity of the FRKs supplied to

them, and having failed to do so, the petitioners cannot

now contend that they have no role in determining the

micronutrient content, on the ground that the

micronutrient levels in fortified rice originate exclusively

36

from the FRKs supplied by 3

rd respondent, as they have a

duty to cross-check the same according to the said SOP.

He submits that respondents 1 and 2 strictly adhered

to the SOPs dated 16.07.2021 and 15.03.2 022, and the

Operational Guidelines dated 13.12.2022, and the

Procedure for Appeal dated 15.03.2023, which are binding

on all stakeholders, and there is no deviation or

contravention; that the results communicated by the DFPD

are final and cannot be challenged by any agency or

stakeholder and as such the rice millers are bound to

replace the BRL stock and there is no merit in the Writ

Petitions.

12. In support of his contentions, the learned

Additional Solicitor General of India relied on the following

decisions.

(i) In Chandigarh Administration & another v. Jagjit

Singh & another

1, wherein it is held thus: (paragraph 8)

“8. We are of the opinion that the basis or the

principle, if it can be called one, on which the writ

petition has been allowed by the H igh Court is

1

(1995) 1 SCC 745

37

unsustainable in law and indefensible in principle.

Since we have come across many such instances, we

think it necessary to deal with such pleas at a little

length. Generally speaking, the mere fact that the

respondent-authority has passed a particular order in

the case of another person similarly situated can never

be the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the

petitioner on the plea of discrimination. The order in

favour of the other person might be legal and valid or it

might not be. That has to be investigated first before it

can be directed to be followed in the case of the

petitioner. If the order in favour of the other person is

found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts

and circumstances of his case, it is obvious that such

illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis

of issuing a writ compelling the respondent-authority to

repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted

order. The extraordinary and discretionary power of the

High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose.

Merely because the respondent-authority has passed

one illegal/unwarranted order, it does not entitle the

High Court to compel the authority to repeat that

illegality over again and again. The illegal/unwarranted

action must be corrected, if it can be done according to

law — indeed, wherever it is possible, the Court should

direct the appropriate authority to correct such wrong

orders in accordance with law — but even if it cannot

be corrected, it is difficult to see how it can be made a

basis for its repetition. By refusing to direct the

38

respondent-authority to repeat the illegality, the Court

is not condoning the earlier illegal act/order nor can

such illegal order constitute the basis for a legitimate

complaint of discrimination. Giving effect to such pleas

would be prejudicial to the interests of law and will do

incalculable mischief to public interest. It will be a

negation of law and the rule of law. Of course, if in case

the order in favour of the other person is found to be a

lawful and justified one it can be followed and a similar

relief can be given to the petitioner if it is found that

the petitioners' case is similar to the other persons'

case. But then why examine another person's case in

his absence rather than examining the case of the

petitioner who is present before the Court and seeking

the relief. Is it not more appropriate and convenient to

examine the entitlement of the petitioner before the

Court to the relief asked for in the facts and

circumstances of his case than to enquire into the

correctness of the order made or action taken in

another person's case, which other person is not before

the case nor is his case. In our considered opinion,

such a course —barring exceptional situations —

would neither be advisable nor desirable. In other

words, the High Court cannot ignore the law and the

well-accepted norms governing the writ jurisdiction

and say that because in one case a particular order

has been passed or a particular action has been taken,

the same must be repeated irrespective of the fact

whether such an order or action is contrary to law or

39

otherwise. Each case must be decided on its own

merits, factual and legal, in accordance with relevant

legal principles. The orders and actions of the

authorities cannot be equated to the judgments of the

Supreme Court and High Courts nor can they be

elevated to the level of the precedents, as understood in

the judicial world. (What is the position in the case of

orders passed by authorities in exercise of their quasi-

judicial power, we express no opinion. That can be

dealt with when a proper case arises.)‖

(ii) in Nalgonda District Rice Millers Association &

others v. Union of India & others,

2 wherein it is held thus:

(paragraph Nos. 16, 17 & 18)

―….The record reveals that as per the mandate of

Government of India, Storage and Research (S&R)

Division works, as a regulatory authority, conduct

surprise checks to ensure that good quality of food

grains have to reach to the beneficiaries. The

inspection of food grains are carried out at Food

Storage Depots (FCI, CWC, SWC & other State agency

godowns), rice mills, rail heads, truck heads and Fair

Price Shops by the Officers of the Quality Control Cells,

which are under the direct of the DFPD with its

headquarters in New Delhi and Re gional Offices at

Kolkata, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Bhopal,

Bhubaneshwar, Lucknow, Pune, Patna, Chennai and

2

MANU/TL/O405/2025

40

Guwahati. The Depots were selected by the deputed

Inspecting Officer invariably and randomly as per the

availability of stock position in the godowns. During

the course of inspection, the inspection team draws the

samples and sent for analysis test in the laboratory of

DFPD as per the BIS standards. In the said test, it was

revealed that the stocks supplied by the petitioners are

BRL.

17. The record further reveals that in the surprise

inspection/check, as per the SOP, there is no

requirement of issuance of prior notice to the

petitioners proposing to conduct surprise

check/inspection and also there is no requirement to

conduct analysis test in the presence of the petitioners,

especially when the petitioners have not attributed any

malafides against the officials of respondent Nos.1 and

2 that they intentionally refused to accept the stock

supplied by them. Hence, the relief sought by the

petitioners seeking to declare the action of the

respondents in rejecting the delivery of FR made by the

petitioners for the crop year 2023-24 as illegal, is not

tenable under law, especially on the ground that the

respondents have not rejected the stock supplied by

them and they only directed the petitioners to replace

the stocks as per the SOP for quality management for

FRK and FR, as the said rice is meant for Public

Distribution System.

18. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners

have not brought to the notice of this Court any

41

provision or procedure that the presence of the parties

is required at the time of conducting inspection,

drawing of the samples and also at the time of

conducting analysis test. It reveals from the record that

the presence of the rice millers is not allowed on the

ground that the respondents have to maintain

confidentiality of the entire process and to avoid undue

influence on the concerned Inspecting Officers. Hence,

the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the

petitioners that the respondents have conducted

surprise inspections, drew samples and conducted

analysis test without providing notice or an

opportunity and rejected the stocks supplied by them

is not tenable under law.‖

13. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for 3

rd

respondent Corporation, while reiterating the averments

stated in the counter affidavit of 3

rd respondent, concurred

with the submissions made by Sri Challa Dhanunjaya,

learned Additional Solicitor General of India, with regard to

subjecting the stocks delivered by the petitioners to

fortificant analysis by 2

nd respondent/FCI, wherein non-

conformity with the required specifications was indicated,

and with regard to filing the appeal and the review with

42

DFPD, wherein also the authorities confirmed with the non-

conforming with the required specifications.

He further submits that the FRK supplied by 3

rd

respondent consistently met the required standards and

after handing-over the FRKs to the millers, it is not known

as to whether the same kernels were blended by the millers

or not, and that as per the Operational Guidelines dated

13.12.2022, it is for the rice miller to cross-verify the FRK

supplied to them by conducting random tests. Hence, he

prayed to dismiss the Writ Petitions.

14. Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel,

appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri

Challa Dhanunjaya, learned Additional Solicitor General of

India appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. MD.

Saleem, learned Standing Counsel for 3

rd respondent-

Corporation. Perused the record.

15. The point that arises for consideration in these

Writ Petitions is whether the impugned orders issued by

the respondents directing the petitioners to replace the

stocks supplied by the petitioners for the crop season KMS

43

2022-23, warrant any interference by this Court, in

exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India ?

16. Government of India approved a Centrally

Sponsored Pilot Scheme viz. ‗fortification of rice and its

distribution under the PDS to address the anaemia and

micronutrient deficiency in our country‘. The Department of

Food and Public Distribution (DFPD), in consultation with

other Departments, decided to scale up the distribution of

fortified rice in all Integrated Child Development Scheme

(ICDS) and PM Poshan schemes, from April 2021, in a

phased manner leveraging domestic supply chain through

2

nd respondent. Objectives of the said schemes are to

provide FRK with good quality and standard and curtail

nutritional deficiencies.

17. The Department of Food and Public Distribution

(DFPD), Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public

Distribution, Government of India, vide F.No. 40-4/2020-

QCC, dated 16.07.2021, issued ‗Standard Operating

Procedure for monitoring quality of food grains stocks

44

procured under Decentralised Procurement (DCP) Scheme‘

(for convenience, hereinafter referred to, as ‗the SOP dated

16.07.2021‘), in order to maintain the quality of food grains

(Wheat/Rice) procured under the Central Pool Stock and to

address various issues arising throughout the entire

channel from procurement to distribution, and the State

Governments were asked to ensure strict compliance of the

said SOP so as to provide good quality food grains to the

beneficiaries.

18. The Department of Food and Public Distribution

(Quality Control Cell), Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food

and Public Distribution, Government of India, vide F.No.

36-5/2018-QCC (Part), dated 15.03.2022, issued ‗Standard

Operating Procedure for Quality Management Protocols for

Fortified Rice Kernels (FRK) and Fortified Rice (FR)‘ (for

convenience, hereinafter referred to, as ‗the SOP dated

15.03.2022‘), in order to maintain the quality of Fortified

Rice Kernels (FRK) and Fortified Rice (FR), and the State

Governments were asked to ensure strict compliance of the

45

said SOP so as to provide good quality Fortified Rice to the

beneficiaries.

19. The Department of Food and Public Distribution

(Quality Control Cell), Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food

and Public Distribution, Government of India, vide F.No.

36-5/2018-QCC (Part), dated 13.12.2022, issued

‗Operational Guidelines on Quality Control for Fortified Rice

Kernels and Fortified Rice‘ (for convenience, hereinafter

referred to, as ‗the Operational Guidelines dated

13.12.2022‘), in order to maintain the quality standards of

FRK/FR, and the State Governments/FCI/ Procuring

Agencies/Stakeholders, etc., were asked to ensure strict

compliance of the said Guidelines so as to provide the best

quality of Fortified Rice to the eligible beneficiaries.

20. The Department of Food and Public Distribution

(Storage and Research Division), Ministry of Consumer

Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Government of India,

vide F.No. 35-13/2023-S & I/204-242, dated 15.03.2023,

issued ‗Procedure for Appeal against rejection of Fortified

46

Rice (FR) Stocks not conforming to norms prescribed by the

Department of Food and Public Distribution, Government of

India and FSSAI‘ (for convenience, hereinafter referred to,

as ‗the Procedure for Appeal dated 15.03.2023‘), to ensure

the level of micronutrients in the samples of Fortified Rice

as well as to avoid any kind of harassment of the rice

millers.

21. Case of the petitioners is that 1

st respondent,

with an intention to improve the quality of CMR, introduced

the scheme of Fortification of Rice, so that fortified rice

would be supplied through the PDS, and issued guidelines

on quality control of FRKs which enumerate that ratio for

blending CMR by way of Fortified Kernels as 1:100. It is

their further case that 3

rd respondent procures paddy and

fortified kernels and supplies the same to the petitioners,

and thereafter, the petitioners blend the paddy using FRKs

and supply the CMR to 2

nd respondent through 3

rd

respondent, and payments therefor will be released by the

3

rd respondent. It is their further case that, while

supplying FRKs, 3

rd respondent subjects the material

47

procured, to various tests and only after the material

passes all the tests, it would be supplied to rice mills, and

that the rice mills use only such FRKs for blending. It is

their further case that the FRK rice supplied by the

petitioners were accepted by 2

nd respondent without raising

any objections, and at the time of delivery, the authorities

of respondents 2 and 3 verified and accepted the same.

22. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the counsel for the petitioners that the

responsibility of the petitioners, being millers, is limited

only to ensure delivery of fortified rice, blended with the

specified ratio of FRK to Custom Milled Rice (CMR), and the

petitioners are not accountable for the micro -nutrient

content, as FRKs are supplied to them by 3

rd respondent-

APSCSC Limited. It is further contended by the learned

Senior Counsel that after lapse of substantial time and

after prolonged storage, the authorities, without any notice

or intimation to the petitioners, drew random samples in

the absence of petitioners, and the same is contrary to the

procedure prescribed and violative of principles of natural

48

justice. It is his further submission that the micronutrient

levels in fortified rice originate exclusively from the FRKs,

which are supplied by 3

rd respondent along with quality

certificates, and the petitioners have no role in determining

the micronutrient content, except mechanically blending in

prescribed ratio. It is his further submission that the

authorities acknowledged that the initial testing results

were inconsistent and fresh sampling was necessary, and

pursuant to the same, samples were subsequently drawn in

the presence of the millers, and when the said samples

were tested, the reports confirmed that the micronutrient

values were within the prescribed limits and therefore the

stock was also accepted; that after the said exercise is

done, the authorities now cannot turn-around and contend

that SOP does not provide for re-sampling.

23. Admittedly, as per the aforesaid SOPs and

Operational Guidelines, the responsibility and

accountability lie on 2

nd respondent to ensure quality and

standards of fortified rice. In order to ensure the same,

Clause No. A. (1) of the SOP dated 16.07.2021, stipulates

49

inspection of food grains at storage level. Clause A. (2) of

the SOP dated 16.07.2021, provides that a joint team shall

be constituted, which will be led by Ministry officials and

will include nominated officer/officials of State Government

and FCI, to facilitate inspection of DCP stock. It provides

that two types of inspection shall be conducted by the joint

team viz. periodic inspection and surprise inspection. As

per Clause A.- 2(b) of the SOP dated 16.07.2021, surprise

inspection can be conducted at any time by the joint team,

without giving any prior notice to the concerned authorities

of the State Government.

24. A reading of the SOP dated 16.07.2021 makes it

clear that in order to ensure the quality and standards of

fortified rice, a joint team, constituted in terms of the

aforesaid Clauses of the said SOP, shall conduct periodic

inspection and surprise inspection of food grains at storage

level. The SOP provides for surprise inspection by the joint

team at any time and no prior notice to the authorities

concerned is required therefor. Admittedly, a joint team

from the Ministry and 2

nd respondent authorities collected

50

the subject samples during their mandatory inspections.

When the said samples were tested in FSSAI-Notified NABL-

Accredited Laboratory as per the SOP dated 13.12.2022, it

was found that the said samples did not meet the

prescribed standards and not in conformity with the limits

prescribed by the FSSAI, requiring regulatory intervention.

The SOP dated 16.07.2021 is binding on the parties. When

the SOP provides for surprise inspection by the joint team

and no prior notice to the authorities concerned need be

issued before conducting the surprise inspection, there is

no requirement of issuance of prior notice to the petitioners

proposing to conduct surprise check/inspection and there

is also no requirement to conduct analysis test in the

presence of petitioners. The sample collection process was

conducted by the joint team strictly adhering to the SOP

and the testing was conducted in FSSAI -Notified NABL-

Accredited Laboratory. No mala fides are attributed against

the officials of respondents 1 and 2. The petitioners have

not brought to the notice of this Court any provision or

procedure which mandates presence of the parties at the

51

time of surprise check/inspection, drawing of the samples

and at the time of conducting analysis test. It is pertinent

to mention here that presence of the petitioners/rice millers

cannot be allowed, as, the authorities have to maintain

confidentiality of the entire process and also to avoid undue

influence, if any, on the inspecting officers concerned. As

per the instructions dated 26.09.2023, issued by 2

nd

respondent, the remedy of appeal is provided only at the

time of acceptance of fortified rice, but not at subsequent

stage of inspections. In the case on hand, the authorities

competent conducted surprise inspections and after

analysing the samples, it was found that the micronutrient

levels in the stocks were BRL, and in pursuance of the

same 2

nd respondent was directed to take steps for

replacement of the stocks. In view of the aforesaid reasons,

having regard to the aforesaid Clauses of the said SOP, the

contention of the learned Senior Counsel that drawing of

samples in the absence of petitioners affects principles of

natural justice, is not tenable.

52

25. It is also the contention of the learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the learned counsel for the

petitioners, that the micronutrient levels in fortified rice

originate exclusively from the FRKs, which are supplied by

3

rd respondent along with Quality Certificates, and that the

petitioners/rice millers have no role in determining

micronutrient content, except mechanically blending in

prescribed ratio. On this aspect, it is the contention of the

learned Standing Counsel for 3

rd respondent-APSCSC

Limited that 3

rd respondent procures FRKs from

manufacturers, ensuring rigorous quality control, and each

batch undergoes testing at FSSAI Notified NABL Accredited

Food Laboratories prior to delivery, and it also conducts

random cross-verifications by sending FRK samples to the

said accredited laboratories to ensure quality compliance,

and that the micronutrient content of the FRK supplied by

3

rd respondent consistently met the required standards,

and that after handing over the FRKs to the millers, it is

not known whether the same kernels were blended by the

millers or not.

53

26. It is pertinent to note that the Department of

Food and Public Distribution, vide SOP dated 15.03.2022

for Quality Management Protocols for FRKs, defined the

responsibility of all the stakeholders, including Rice Millers

and the State Government. The responsibilities are further

clarified vide Operational Guidelines dated 13.12.2022.

The said Operational Guidelines were issued by the

Ministry in order to maintain quality standards of FRK/FR,

directing all the State Governments/FCI/Procuring

Agencies/Other Stakeholders, to ensure compliance of the

same, so as to provide best quality fortified rice to the

eligible beneficiaries. Clause II of the aforesaid Operational

Guidelines deals with, ‗Quality Control during production of

fortified rice at Rice Mills‘. Clause II (f) thereof stipulates

that in order to ensure that only good quality FRK is used

for blending, the procurement agencies concerned, like

FCI/State Procurement Agencies, may get random samples

drawn directly from the fortified rice prepared by the mills

and get them tested f rom any FSSAI-Notified NABL-

Accredited Labs as per the validated method approved by

54

FSSAI. Annexure – 2 of the said Operational Guidelines

(flow chart for sampling and testing up to FSD/FPS Level),

stipulates that after receipt of FRK from FRK

manufacturer/supplier, the rice millers should also cross-

check the sanctity of the FRK supplied by the FRK

manufacturer/supplier, by testing a sample at FSSAI-

Notified NABL-Accredited Lab, on random basis. Therefore,

as per the Operational Guidelines dated 13.12.2022, a duty

is cast on the rice millers to cross-check the sanctity of the

FRK supplied by the FRK manufacturers or suppliers by

testing a sample at FSSAI-Notified NABL-Accredited Lab, on

random basis. No material is filed to the effect that before

blending process, the petitioners/rice millers cross-checked

the sanctity of the FRKs supplied by the manufacturer .

Therefore, in view of the specific plea taken by 3

rd

respondent and in the absence of any material to show that

the rice millers adhered to, the obligation cast on them to

cross-check the sanctity of the FRKs supplied by the

manufacturers, particularly, when the sample collected

during surprise inspection by the joint team, failed to meet

55

the standards prescribed, now, the petitioners/rice millers

cannot be permitted to take the plea that the petitioners

/rice millers have no role in determining micronutrient

content, and they only mechanically blended the FRK

supplied by 3

rd respondent in prescribed ratio and supplied

the same to 2

nd respondent. Therefore, in view of the

aforesaid discussion, the said contention is not tenable.

27. Further, it is not in dispute that the subject

matter in W.P. Nos. 26533 of 2024, 26520 of 2024, 26534

of 2024 and 26619 of 2024, would fall under 10%

Mandatory Inspection contemplated under Level 3.3 of the

SOP dated 15.03.2022, whereunder a minimum of 10% of

the samples may be referred to FSSAI -Approved NABL-

Accredited Laboratories, in order to check the level of

micronutrients, on monthly basis, by the procurement

agency i.e. 2

nd respondent-FCI, before sending the same for

distribution under various social security schemes of the

Government of India, within its shelf life. In the aforesaid

four Writ Petitions, as a part of Mandatory Inspection of

minimum 10% stocks, th e stocks lifted from the

56

petitioners/rice millers in the said Writ Petitions were sent

to FSSAI-Notified NABL-Accredited Laboratory (Interfield

Lab), and upon testing, the primary authority rejected the

stock as the micronutrient level in the collected samples

were Beyond Rejection Limit (BRL). It is also not in dispute

that 3

rd respondent Corporation/State Government Agency

availed the remedy of Appeal under Clauses 5 to 7 of the

Procedure for Appeal dated 15.03.2023, and upon testing

by the referral /appellate lab, the samples were found to be

not in conformity with the levels prescribed by FSSAI.

Thereafter, 3

rd respondent Corporation/State Agency

availed the remedy of review of analysis result of referral

/appellate lab in respect of appeal, under Clause 8 of the

Procedure for Appeal dated 15.03.2023, by providing the

third sample (review samples) to the Ministry for analysis.

A perusal of the material on record goes to show that even

upon testing by the referral/appellate lab, as a part of

review, the samples were found to be not in conformity with

the levels prescribed by FSSAI.

57

28. It is not in dispute that the Procedure for Appeal

dated 15.03.2023, issued by the Ministry is not under

challenge. Under Clause 2 of the Procedure for Appeal

dated 15.03.2023, after formation of stacks, 10% stock of

fortified rice will be checked for the level of micronutrients

in the fortified rice, and for this, three sealed samples have

to be drawn jointly by the AGM (QC)/ DGM (QC), in the

presence of representative of the rice miller/State

Government Agency. Clause 3 thereof stipulates that out of

the three jointly sealed samples, two samples will be

retained by the FCI for testing and 3

rd sample will be

handed-over to the concerned State Government Agency as

a review sample. As per Clause 4 thereof, out of the two

samples retained by FCI, one sample will be get tested in

any of the FSSAI-Notified NABL-Accredited Laboratories for

the level of micronutrients as prescribed by FSSAI in the

fortified rice and the result shall be conveyed within 15

working days of the drawal of the sample. According to

Clause 5, in case of rejection of 1

st sample, owing to

excessive or lesser micronutrient value, the rice miller

58

/State Government may prefer an appeal to the Ministry

within 48 hours of the receipt of rejection letter under

intimation to FCI, and as per Clause 6, for the purpose of

appeal, FCI has to send 2

nd sample to the Ministry within 3

working days of appeal. As per Clause 7, on receipt of 2

nd

sample from FCI, the Ministry has to send the same to for

testing in one of its referral/appellate labs, and

communicate the result to the FCI within 15 days.

29. As per Clause 8 of the Procedure for Appeal

dated 15.03.2023, in case of rejection of 2

nd sample, the

State Agency may request for review of analysis of the

result of the referral/appellate lab in respect of appeal and

provide the review sample kept with it, to the Ministry for

the analysis, within the timeline mentioned thereunder.

30. There is also no dispute that Clause 9 of the

Procedure for Appeal dated 15.03.2023, prescribes that the

results of the review sample tested at referral/appellate

labs of the Ministry are final and cannot be challenged by

any agencies-stakeholders, and Clause 10 thereof

59

stipulates that in case of rejection of stock, the rice

miller/State Government Agency will lift the rejected stock

within 24 hours.

31. In the case on hand, there is no dispute with

regard to adherence to the procedure prescribed under the

Procedure for Appeal dated 15.03.2023. Admittedly, the

samples failed in the testing by the primary authority, in

appeal and in review.

32. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the counsel for the petitioners that FCI

Headquarters, vide letter No. FCI-HQ-QC044/2/2022-QC

dated 12.01.2024, addressed to the FCI Zonal Office,

informed that the said stock has been lying in FCI godowns

for a considerable time and it was decided that another

testing of the aforesaid stocks be done through FSSAI -

Notified Labs by concerned Regional Offices to check the

present level of micronutrients by drawing the samples for

retesting. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the

samples drawn for testing were got tested and found to be

60

in conformity with the limits prescribed by the FSSAI, and

accordingly, the FCI Regional Office addressed letter No. RO

AP-37011/1/2023-QC-RO AP dated 24.04.2024 to the

Divisional Office, Vijayawada, whereby adhoc approval was

given to the Divisional Office to accept the CMR from the

rice millers from which samples have been sent for

retesting and whose results were found to be well within

the prescribed limits, until further instructions from the

Regional Office.

33. From the recitals of the aforesaid letter dated

24.04.2024 of the FCI Regional Office, it is clear that an

adhoc approval has been accorded to accept the CMR from

the aforesaid 4 rice millers until further instructions from

the said office. It is made clear in the said letter that the

rice millers shall abide by the final decision of the FCI

Headquarters on retested fortified rice stocks. Thereupon,

pursuant to letter No. HQ-QC044(13)/2/2022-QC, dated

06.06.2024 addressed by the FCI Headquarter, the DFPD,

vide letter F. No. 36-7/2023-QCC, dated 10.06.2024, made

it clear that the results of the review sample were tested at

61

referral/appellate labs of FSSAI and therefore, the results

communicated by the Ministry are final and cannot be

challenged by any Agency/Stakeholder, as per Clause 9 of

the Procedure for Appeal dated 15.03.2023, and it is made

clear in the said letter that the DFPD has not considered

any change in the SOP. Pursuant to the said letter of the

DFPD, FCI Headquarters, vide letter No. FCI

HQ044(13)/2/2022-QC, dated 23.08.2024, informed FCI

Regional Office to take action as per the letter dated

10.06.2024 of the DFPD. Pursuant to the same, the FCI

Regional Office, vide letter No. RO AP-37011/1/2023-QC-

RO AP, dated 30.08.2024, informed 3

rd respondent

Corporation about the decision of the DFPD, and

accordingly, requested to get all the 52 stacks i.e. samples

collected by QCC team and found to be BRL and samples

that failed in appeal at Ministry level in AP Region,

replaced.

34. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that

though FCI Regional Office gave an adhoc approval to FCI

Divisional Office, Vijayawada, to accept CMR from the

62

aforesaid 4 rice millers only, vide letter dated 24.04.2024, it

was made clear in the said letter itself that the said rice

millers shall have to abide by the final decision of the FCI

Head Quarters on the retested fortified rice stocks.

Admittedly, it was only an adhoc approval, subject to final

decision by the FCI Head Quarters, relating to the aforesaid

4 rice millers only. Simply because an adhoc approval was

accorded to the FCI, Divisional Office, Vijayawada, to accept

the CMR from the aforesaid 4 rice millers, which is subject

to the decision of the FCI Head Quarters on the retested

fortified rice stocks, the same cannot confer any right on

the petitioners-rice millers to seek a direction from this

Court for implementation of the said decision. In fact, in

the said letter dated 24.04.2024 itself, it is made clear that

the said adhoc decision to accept CMR from the aforesaid 4

rice millers, is always subject to final decision of the FCI

Head Quarters on the fortified rice stocks. Thereafter, the

FCI Headquarters, vide letter dated 23.08.2024, informed

the FCI Regional Office, to take action as per the letter

dated 10.06.2024 of the DFPD. The DFPD rightly informed

63

the FCI Head Quar ters that as per Clause 9 of the

Procedure for Appeal, results of review sample tested at

referral/appellate labs of the Ministry are final and the

same cannot be challenged by any Agencies/Stakeholders,

in view of the fact that the Procedure for Appeal dated

15.03.2023, is binding and the Department has not

considered any change in it. In view of the same, the FCI

Regional Office, vide letter dated 30.08.2024, requested 3

rd

respondent to get all the 52 stacks replaced. The FCI

Regional Office also, vide impugned letters informed to FCI

Divisional Office about the decision taken by DFPD that the

results of the review sample at referral/appellate labs of the

Ministry are final and cannot be challenged by Agencies

/Stakeholders, and accordingly requested to take necessary

action and get the stacks replaced immediately at the own

risk and cost of the millers as per the aforesaid letter of the

DFPD dated 10.06.2024 and the SOP. Therefore, in view

of the aforesaid reasons, even if FCI Head Quarters, vide

letter dated 12.01.2024, informed its Zonal Offices about

the decision taken for another testing of the aforesaid

64

stocks through FSSAI-Notified Labs, the same does not

hold any value in view of the fact that Clause 9 of the

Procedure for Appeal dated 15.03.2023, issued by the

Ministry, contemplates that the results of review sample

tested at referral/appellate labs of the Ministry are final

and the same cannot be challenged by any Agencies

/Stakeholders, and that the SOP does not contemplate any

subsequent resampling and retesting.

35. Admittedly, there is no privity of contract

between 2

nd respondent/FCI and the rice millers, as the

agreement for storage and custom milling of paddy into

raw/ fortified / boiled rice – for KMS 2022-23 was made by

and between 3

rd respondent and the rice millers, and the

contractual obligations governing the fortification process

lie between petitioners/rice millers and 3

rd respondent. It is

stated across the Bench that the scheme of supply of FRK

rice to 2

nd respondent has been withdrawn.

36. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is

of the opinion that the procedure adopted by the

respondents is strictly in accordance with the SOP dated

65

16.07.2021, the SOP dated 15.03.2022, the Operational

Guidelines dated 13.12.2022 and the Procedure for Appeal

dated 15.03.2023 and there is no infirmity. This Court

held that the Surprise Inspection conducted by the joint

team is strictly as per the SOP dated 16.07.2021. In fact,

respondents have not rejected the stocks, but only directed

to replace the defective stock as per the terms of the SOP

dated 16.07.2021. There is no infirmity and no interference

is called for, by this Court. There is no infringement of any

Fundamental or Statutory right of the petitioners so as to

invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petitions

are devoid of merits and are liable to be dismissed.

37. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are dismissed.

There shall be no costs as to costs of the Writ Petitions.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Writ

Petitions shall stand closed.

(JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY)

DRK

17.06.2026

66

THE HON‘BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

COMMON ORDER

IN

WRIT PETITION No.26620 of 2024, 26520 of 2024,

26521 of 2024, 26522 of 2024, 26525 of 2024,

26526 of 2024, 26527 of 2024, 26533 of 2024,

26534 of 2024, 26535 of 2024, 26543 of 2024,

26549 of 2024, 26550 of 2024, 26551 of 2024,

26619 of 2024, 26621 of 2024, 237 of 2025,

239 of 2025, 242 of 2025, 259 of 2025, 270 of 2025,

277 of 2025, 280 of 2025, 286 of 2025, 287 of 2025,

289 of 2025, 292 of 2025, 297 of 2025, 306 of 2025,

308 of 2025, 316 of 2025, 319 of 2025, 320 of 2025,

339 of 2025, 342 of 2025, 345 of 2025, 347 of 2025,

348 of 2025, 349 of 2025, 351 of 2025, 354 of 2025,

356 of 2025, 359 of 2025, 360 of 2025, 364 of 2025,

367 of 2025, 386 of 2025 & 474 of 2025

17.06.2026

DRK

67

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

WRIT PETITION No.26620 of 2024, 26520 of 2024,

26521 of 2024, 26522 of 2024, 26525 of 2024,

26526 of 2024, 26527 of 2024, 26533 of 2024,

26534 of 2024, 26535 of 2024, 26543 of 2024,

26549 of 2024, 26550 of 2024, 26551 of 2024,

26619 of 2024, 26621 of 2024, 237 of 2025,

239 of 2025, 242 of 2025, 259 of 2025, 270 of 2025,

277 of 2025, 280 of 2025, 286 of 2025, 287 of 2025,

289 of 2025, 292 of 2025, 297 of 2025, 306 of 2025,

308 of 2025, 316 of 2025, 319 of 2025, 320 of 2025,

339 of 2025, 342 of 2025, 345 of 2025, 347 of 2025,

348 of 2025, 349 of 2025, 351 of 2025, 354 of 2025,

356 of 2025, 359 of 2025, 360 of 2025, 364 of 2025,

367 of 2025, 386 of 2025 & 474 of 2025

Between:

Kanyaka Traders ...PETITIONER

AND

Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

DATE OF COMMON ORDER PRONOUNCED : 17.06.2026

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Order may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the

fair copy of the Order? Yes/No

JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

68

* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

+ WRIT PETITION No.26620 of 2024, 26520 of 2024,

26521 of 2024, 26522 of 2024, 26525 of 2024,

26526 of 2024, 26527 of 2024, 26533 of 2024,

26534 of 2024, 26535 of 2024, 26543 of 2024,

26549 of 2024, 26550 of 2024, 26551 of 2024,

26619 of 2024, 26621 of 2024, 237 of 2025,

239 of 2025, 242 of 2025, 259 of 2025, 270 of 2025,

277 of 2025, 280 of 2025, 286 of 2025, 287 of 2025,

289 of 2025, 292 of 2025, 297 of 2025, 306 of 2025,

308 of 2025, 316 of 2025, 319 of 2025, 320 of 2025,

339 of 2025, 342 of 2025, 345 of 2025, 347 of 2025,

348 of 2025, 349 of 2025, 351 of 2025, 354 of 2025,

356 of 2025, 359 of 2025, 360 of 2025, 364 of 2025,

367 of 2025, 386 of 2025 & 474 of 2025

% 17.06.2026

# Between:

Kanyaka Traders ...PETITIONER

AND

Union of India & others ...Respondents

! Counsel for the petitioners : Sri K.S.Murthy, learned senior

counsel appearing for petitioners

Sri T.V.P.Sai Vihari & others

^ Counsel for the respondents : 1)Sri Challa Dhanunjaya, learned

Additional Solicitor General of

India appearing for R1 & R2

2) Sri MD. Saleem, learned

Standing Counsel for R.3

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1) (1995) 1 SCC 745

2) MANU/TL/O405/2025