Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
Jai Maa Tarini Food Products, Bolangir – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's concerns regarding bank guarantee. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. assurance from government advocate on no threat to guarantee. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. extension of milling and delivery period for cmr. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's directive on compliance with government policy. (Para 8) |
| 5. conclusion and disposal of writ petition. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The matter though in the list could not reach, the learned counsel for the petitioner mentioned the matter and it is taken up.
2. The petitioner is a Custom Miller of Rice. He has approached this Court apprehending invocation of bank guarantee that was furnished before the opposite party no.4-CSO, Balangir. The bank guarantee is furnished through Bank of India, Patnagarh (O.P. No.6). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the squad of officials constituted by the Opposite Party No.4, Civil Supplies Officer, Balangir have visited for physical verification of the premises of the rice milling unit for which the petitioner apprehends coercive action.
4. The learned Additional Government Advocate refers to Annexure-3 to the writ application i.e. office letter dated 31.12.2025 issued by the Department of Food Suppl
Court upheld government guidelines extending CMR delivery dates, preventing coercive actions against the petitioner during compliance with such regulations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision of the Central Government to insist on the supply of fortified rice by rice millers was within the purview of the Custom Milling ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
