High Court describes as ‘inappropriate’ cut-off date before declaring policy

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, November 1

In a significant ruling calling for a review of policy implementation procedures, the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the State of Punjab to introduce in future policy prior to the cut-off date fixed under it.

The decision follows a case in which the State and other respondents declared custom milling policy on July 31 and simultaneously instructed units to register themselves under it by July 22 –– a date preceding the policy’s introduction.

“This this Court would hasten to add that it was inappropriate on the part of respondents to declare policy on July 31 and ask the units to get themselves registered on or before July 22 –– a date prior to introduction of the policy. Therefore, the State is directed to look into the matter and in future introduce policy prior to last date prescribed for registration of units,” Justice Jagmohan Bansal asserted.

The matter was brought to the high court’s notice after Jai Durga Rice Mill and other petitioners filed a petition seeking the setting aside of order dated September 28, whereby they were refused to be registered for allocation of paddy “for KMS 2023-24” on the basis of enhanced capacity.

Justice Bansal observed the petitioners were engaged in the business of milling rice and “carrying out job work for State of Punjab”. They were entirely dependent upon paddy supplied by the State, which every year formulated a milling policy.

The State’s custom milling policy issued for “KMS 2023-24” was notified on July 31 and required every new mill to get itself registered by July 22. Referring to the facts of the case in hand, Justice Bansal asserted the petitioners enhanced their milling capacity and were required to get registered as “de novo units” in accordance with the policy for which the last date was July 22. The respondent by the impugned order rejected the petitioners’ claim on the ground that many other mills, post enhancement in their milling capacity, had got themselves registered by July 22 and there was lapse on the part of the petitioners.

Their counsel contended that the petitioners could not be expected to know the cut-off date for registration prior to the policy’s introduction. The State counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioners would be registered and their cases for allotment of paddy on the basis of enhanced capacity for the subsequent years would be considered as per applicable policy.

“In the wake of statements of both sides, the petition stands disposed of,” Justice Bansal asserted, before issuing the directions.