ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.4 in not allotting the custom milling paddy from the year 2025-2026 to the petitioner in the name of dues fell by the lessee of the petitioner, i.e., M/s Sri Vallabha Foods, and passing the order dated 28.01.2026 in CS4/62/2025, without considering its representations, dated 24.11.2025 and 28.08.2025, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the orders of this Court in WP.No.29370/2025, dated 20.11.2025 and for consequential relief.

2. Heard Sri K.M.Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case as averred in the writ affidavit are that the petitioner-rice mill, who is the owner, possessor of N.Pramila Rice Mill, leased the same to M/s Sri Vallabha Foods, represented by one V.Sharadha, from 01.11.2023 to 31.10.2025 on rental basis @ Rs 2,40,000/- per annum, Rs.13,10,000/- per annum for godown, totalling to Rs.15,50,000/- per annum. The lessee obtained GST Reg. Certificate, dated 28.10.2023, from the Government of India valid till 25.10.2025 and that due to non-payment of rents by the lessee which aggregated to Rs.23,30,000/- by March 2025, the petitioner had complained to the Commissioner of Police against the lessee and her husband on 15.04.2025 and later, upon requests, the total paddy stock, gunny bags of custom milling rice were lifted and the total premises was handed over to the petitioner in April, 2025 and since then the petitioner has been in possession of the mill.

3.1. That, on 28.08.2025, the petitioner made representation to the respondents to allot custom milling of paddy to it, from kharif season 2025- 2026 without reference to the dues of the lessee; that aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in considering the said representation, the petitioner filed WP.No.29370/2025 and this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition, vide order 20.11.2025, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two months from the date of the said order. That in purported compliance of the said order, respondent No.4 passed the Order dated 28.01.2026, without considering the representations of the petitioner and without issuing notice to the petitioner. Hence, challenging the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.4 passed the impugned order based on the Circular instructions of Commissioner of Civil Supplies, vide CCS.Ref.No.(I(1)/914/2024, dated 26.04.202, which was issued without any enabling provision of law; that the authorities without proceeding against the four guarantors of the lessee, viz., Om Shri Balaji Industries, Sri Venkateshwara Rice Mill, Sri Hari Krishna Agro Industries and Balaji Traders, as per G.O.No.12, Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department(CS.I.CCS) Department, dated 27.06.2024, for recovery of the dues of the lessee, illegally denied the allotment of custom milling of paddy to the petitioner and held the petitioner liable for the dues of the lessee.

4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that by letter dated 13.09.2024, though the DSO office, Nizamabad, was informed that lessee stored about 20,000 quintals of paddy in DJ Godown, no action had been taken by the authorities either to shift or to seize the said stock, which shows the collusion between the authorities and the lessee.

4.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner-lessor is not surety for the lessee and as such, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the dues of the lessee. In support of the said submission, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in Awari Amarender V. Shriram City Union Finance and Another, 2025(1) ALT (NRC) 57 wherein it is observed as under:-

“The liability of co-surety is co-ex