LexSRI KRISHNA RICE MILLS ETC. versus JOINT DIRECTOR (FOOD) GOVT. OF INDIA, VJJAYAWADA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
418 SRI KRISHNA RICE MILLS ETC. v. JOINT DIRECTOR (FOOD) GOVT. OF INDIA, VJJAYAWADA January 27, 1965 [K. N. WANCHOO, M. HJDAYATULLAH, J. C. SHAH, J. R. MUDHOLKl\R A AND S. M. S!KRI, JJ.] B Essentt'al Conunodities Act (10 of 1955) s. 3-Scope of-'Published figureJ·', nJeanint? of.-Fixation of price by Ce1Jtral Government-If violatiYe of Arts. 14, 19 and 31-Cominodity procured by appellant at prevalent price-Government .fixing lower price for requisition-Validity. Constit1'tion oj Jndht, 1950, A rt. 226-Act providing orders Jo be final- lifject. In exercise of the pov;rers conferre<l by riotifications issued under s. 3 of the E.ssential Commodities \ct, 1955, the concerned officer directed, on August 20, 1957. various appellants in TadcpaJligudem in Andhra Pradesh, to sell to the Government of India certain quantities and kinds of rice at price calculated by him. The officer took into account the rates published in Vija~ yawada, about 80 miles from Tadepalligudem, which was the nearest locality 'Where published figures were available. and made such adjustments as were necessitated by considering transport charges and the quality of rice procured which was inferiqr to the rice for which the published price was available in Vijayawada. On September 14, 1957 the Central Government under s. 3(2)(c), fixed the maximum price, and the officer made requisitions between September 14. , and December 29, 1957 at that price. On December 30. 1957, after the new rice crop had come into the market, c D ihe Central Government refixed the maximum price at less than the maximum E price fixed on September 14. 1957, and Government requfsitioned rice there~ after at that price, from the appellants. The appellants filed writ petitions in the High Court, contending Iha~ (1) for the period before September 14. 1957, the price had not been properly fixed according to the provisions of the Act; (2) the prices fixed by the Central Government on September 14, 1957. and December 30, were hit by Arts. 14. 19 and 31 of the Constitution; and (3) the lesser price fixed on F December 30, 1957, should not have been' applied to the rice purchased Dy the appellants before that date at the higher rate fixed on September 141 1957, and requisitioned fron1 them after December 30. The writ pctitiom wtre dismissed. Dismissing the appeals to this Court, / HELD: (1 )(a) Under s. 3(3A)(iii) there are 3 ways in which the price has to be fixed as indicated in sub-els, (a), (b) and (c). Sub-clauses (a) G and (b) apply only to those situations where a controlled price has ~ fixed by the Central Government. Since there was no · controtled price before Sep· tember 14, 1957 in the present case. sub-cl. (c) applied. Hence, the officer bad to fix the price under s. 3(3A)(iii)(~, and the contention that be should "have first tried to come to an agreen1ent ith the appellants under sub-cl. (a) ~ .. no force. [426A-EJ (bl Under s. 3(3A)(iii)(C) and cl. (iv), the price had to be calculated with reference to the average market rate prevailing in the locality, on the H basis of published figures available in the locality or a neighbouring locality. <luring the periop of 3 months immediately preceding the dates cf not1rica- -•ion of the pri"!', W16F] J A B c D E SRI KRISHNA RICE MILLS I'. JT. DIR. FOOD (Wa11clwo, J.) 419 (c) The words 'published figures' mean that figures should be publicised in some way as in newspapers or on the radio or in any other manner which makes them known to the general public. The prices entered in i.he accounts books of the appellants, cannot. in any circumstances be called 'published figu.te$' even if they were shown to the tax-authorities. [4270-F] (d) Admittedly the rice procured was inferior in quality to the rice for which the published price was available in Vijayawada. Hence, merely be- cause in 1964. Central Government issued a :K>tification, that the difference between the two qualities is slight, would not mean that the officer was wrong in treating, in 1957 the rice procured by him as inferior. [42Bf~HJ Therefore, it cannot be said that the officer was wrong in taking the figures published in Vijayawada and making_ the necessary adjustments. (429B] (2) (a) The orders passed by the Central Government fixing the price relate only to certain districts of Andhra Pradesh. But these districls are sur~ plus rice producing districts and form a class by themselves
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.