AP High Court Upholds Food Corporation Of India's Direction To Rice Millers To Replace Fortified Stocks Which Failed Mandatory Quality Test

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the action of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and other authorities directing rice millers to replace fortified rice stocks that failed mandatory quality tests, holding that the authorities acted in accordance with the SOPs governing the Fortified Rice Scheme and that no arbitrariness or violation of natural justice was made out. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 125]

A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by rice millers challenging directions to replace fortified rice stocks supplied during the Kharif Marketing Season (KMS) 2022-23.

The petitioners also questioned the action allegedly preventing them from supplying Fortified Rice Kernels (FRK) in future and sought release of their long-pending bills.

The court observed that:

“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 3rd 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 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 3rd respondent in prescribed ratio and supplied the same to 2nd respondent. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the said contention is not tenable.”

The dispute arose after mandatory inspections and surprise quality checks conducted under the SOPs governing the Fortified Rice Scheme found that the petitioners' fortified rice stocks did not meet the prescribed micronutrient standards, leading to directions for their replacement.

The petitioners contended that they merely blended FRKs supplied by the Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation (APSCSC) in the prescribed ratio and had no role in determining their micronutrient content.

They also contended that the samples were collected after prolonged storage without notice to them, that fresh samples later passed the quality tests, and therefore the replacement directions were arbitrary.

Rejecting these submissions, the Court noted that there is no requirement for the presence of rice millers while samples are drawn or tested. It said:

“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 Court further held that the surprise inspections were conducted strictly in accordance with the applicable SOPs and clarified that the respondents had not rejected the petitioners' stocks outright but had only directed replacement of the defective stocks as per the prescribed procedure. 

The Court further noted that the stocks had failed not only in the initial laboratory tests but also in the statutory appeal and review under the Procedure for Appeal, thereby justifying the replacement directions and the consequential action preventing the petitioners from supplying FRKs in future under the statutory quality control framework.

On the claim for outstanding bills, the Court held that the issue involved disputed facts and could not be decided in writ proceedings.

Holding that the respondents had acted in compliance with the prescribed statutory procedure and that the petitioners had failed to establish any arbitrariness or procedural illegality, the Division Bench dismissed the batch of writ petitions.

Case Title: Kanyaka Traders vs Union of India and Others

Case No.: W.P. No. 26620 of 2024 & Batch

Counsel for the Petitioners: T V P Sai Vihari

Counsel for the Respondents: Deputy Solicitor General of India, O Udaya Kumar & Md. Saleem SC For Apscsc Limited, Vijayawda

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 125