Rejection of Fortified Rice Kernels: Court Upholds Surprise Inspections and Replacement Orders, Affirms SOP Compliance - 2025-03-12

```markdown

Telangana High Court Upholds Fortified Rice Quality Control, Dismisses Millers' Petitions

Hyderabad, India – The Telangana High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by rice millers challenging the rejection of Fortified Rice Kernels (FRK) supplied for the crop year 2023-24. Justice J. SreenivasRao presided over the case, delivering a common order in Writ Petition Nos. 15889, 15926, and others, all heard together. The court upheld the actions of the Union of India and the Food Corporation of India (FCI) in conducting surprise inspections and ordering the replacement of rice stocks deemed to be 'Beyond Rejection Level' (BRL) due to inadequate blending of FRK with Custom Milled Rice (CMR).

Case Overview: Rice Millers Challenge Quality Control Measures

The petitioners, primarily rice millers from the Nalgonda district in Telangana, contested the rejection of their FRK deliveries and the subsequent directives to replace the BRL stock. They argued that the inspections conducted by the respondents were in violation of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), lacked transparency, and denied them an opportunity to be heard. The millers sought to set aside the rejection orders and ensure future deliveries would be accepted without reference to the BRL classifications.

Arguments of the Petitioners: Procedural Lapses and Natural Justice

Represented by Mr. Pasham Mohith and Mr. K. Venumadhav, the petitioners primarily contended that:

• Surprise Inspections Violated SOP: The surprise checks were conducted without prior notice or intimation, contrary to established procedures.
• Lack of Opportunity for Re-analysis: Their requests for re-examination and re-analysis of samples were ignored, denying them a fair opportunity to address the findings.
• No On-the-Spot Analysis: The analysis was not conducted in their presence or on-the-spot, and the results were communicated after a significant delay.
• Appeal Mechanism Denied: The petitioners were not afforded the appeal mechanism stipulated in the SOPs at the time of stock acceptance.
• Initial Acceptance of Stocks: They emphasized that the initial deliveries in March and April 2024 were accepted after thorough checks, only for subsequent surprise inspections to declare the stocks as BRL.

Respondents' Submissions: Ensuring Quality in Public Distribution

The respondents, represented by Mr. B.N. Sharma , Additional Solicitor General of India, and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, Standing Counsel for FCI, defended their actions by stating:

• Adherence to SOPs and Guidelines: The inspections and quality control measures were conducted strictly in accordance with the Operational Guidelines and SOPs issued by the Department of Food and Public Distribution (DFPD).
• Routine Quality Checks: The inspections were routine activities aimed at ensuring the quality of fortified rice distributed through the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) and other welfare schemes.
• No Provision for Miller's Presence During Inspections: To maintain confidentiality and avoid undue influence, the presence of rice millers during surprise inspections is not предусмотрено.
• Appeal Mechanism Limited to Initial Acceptance: The appeal procedure is applicable only at the time of initial stock acceptance and not during subsequent surprise inspections.
• BRL Stocks Require Replacement, Not Rejection: The respondents clarified that the millers were directed to replace the BRL stocks, not have their deliveries outright rejected, as part of maintaining quality for public distribution.
• Importance of Blending Ratio: Strict adherence to the prescribed blending ratio of FRK with CMR (1:100) is crucial to ensure the intended nutritional benefits reach the beneficiaries.

Court's Analysis and Decision: Upholding Quality Control

Justice Rao , after considering the arguments and examining the records, sided with the respondents, observing:

• Surprise Inspections Permissible: The SOPs explicitly allow for surprise inspections to ensure quality control at various stages, and prior notice is not mandated for such checks.
• No Procedural Violation: The court found no evidence of procedural violations or malafide intent on the part of the inspecting officials.
• No Right to be Present During Analysis: The SOPs do not mandate the presence of rice millers during sample collection or analysis, especially during surprise checks designed to ensure unbiased assessment.
• Replacement Not Rejection: The court emphasized that the directive was for replacement of stocks, not outright rejection, aligning with the SOPs for managing BRL stock in the interest of public health and the PDS.
• Appeal Mechanism correctly Applied: The court concurred that the appeal mechanism is limited to the initial acceptance stage and does not extend to subsequent quality checks.

Pivotal Excerpt :

> "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... 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... 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..."

Implications of the Judgment

The High Court's decision reinforces the government's authority to conduct surprise inspections and enforce quality control measures for fortified rice distributed through public schemes. It underscores the importance of adhering to SOPs and guidelines aimed at maintaining the nutritional standards of fortified food grains. The judgment clarifies that the focus is on ensuring beneficiaries receive quality fortified rice and that replacement of BRL stock is a part of this quality assurance process, not a punitive rejection of supplies.

Final Decision: The Telangana High Court dismissed all writ petitions, upholding the actions of the respondent authorities. No order was made regarding costs.

```