Hyderabad: Siddipet district collector P Venkatrami Reddy on Wednesday clarified that he had no intentions to disrespect the court. He also denied making distasteful comments on paddy cultivation.
Reddy claimed that his comments were misinterpreted by some people for their ulterior motives. He added that he has the highest regard for the judiciary.
He came under the scanner for the remarks he had made during a meeting with seed sellers on October 25.
Reddy maintained that he had only given a warning to certain seed dealers over the sale of spurious seeds. The meeting was conducted to educate the farmers regarding the instructions from the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and to create awareness regarding alternative crop farming.
According to a report by Telangana Today, Reddy stated that spurious seeds sale was a serious problem in the district, and certain shops were sealed after the registration of cases. “It was noticed that those dealers whose shops were closed were moving the court by suppressing facts,” he recalled. The collector stressed that the farmers were facing huge losses due to spurious seeds. In this
In a media briefing at Siddipet, Reddy said that paddy cultivation was also discussed on October 25 where he remarked that paddy grown in high temperatures during the summer season will have a high broken percentage on milling and is not suitable for delivery of raw rice. He further stated that the Telangana region falls in a high-temperature region, and particularly in some parts of Siddipet district, the issue of broken rice and FCI instructions on stoppage of parboiled rice from the state needed to be addressed. Reddy claimed that the seed dealers were in constant touch with the farmers, and they were educating them about alternative farming.
However, the meeting on October 25 was attended by some dealers who indulged in the sale of spurious seeds due to which he stated, “even if such dealers suppress facts and obtain orders, I will apprise the courts about the correct position. Even if any orders were granted, we would move the court to get such orders vacated “. He claimed that these statements were misinterpreted by many, and made to look as if he was speaking against the judiciary.