SRI VIJAYLAKSHMI RICE MILLS, NEW CONTRACTORS COMPANY, ETC versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 775 · Decided: 22-03-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

, 
, 
• 
775 
SRI VIJA YLAKSHMI RICE MILLS, NEW CONTRACTORS 
A 
COMPANY ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
March 22, 1976 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
Rici' (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control (3rd A111e11d111e111) Order 1964, clause 
2-Whether refrospecti\·ity of substitution inferred i11 (lbsence of express pral'i-
sion. 
Under s. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955, the respondent passed 
the Andhra Pradesh Procurement (Levy) Order 1959, requiring every miller and 
B 
Uealer of rice (including the appellants) to sell to the 
respondent 
certain 
C 
specified varieties and quantities of rice at controlled price on requisition being 
served on him. 
Clause 2(a) of the Order defined "controlled price" ns the 
maximum price fixed by the Central Government from time to time under s. 3 
of the Act for the sale of rice. 
On December 19, 1963, the Central Govern-
ment passed the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control Order 1963, fixing the 
maximum price of akkulu rice at Rs. 46.89 per q;.1inta1. 
The appellants sold 
several Quantities of akkulu rice to the respondent from January 26, 1964, to 
February 21, 1964, and were paid at the controlled rate. 
On March 23, 1964, 
the Central Government issued the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control. (3rd 
D 
amendment) Order 1964, and substituted Rs. 52.28 for Rs. 46.89 3.s the maximum 
price per quintal, of akkulu rice. 
The appellant's claim for the -benefit of the 
enhanced price for the earlier _sales was rejected by the Government of Andhra 
Pradesh. The appellants succeed_ed before the Subordinate Judge, Machilipatnam, 
in their suits for recovery of the difference between the two controlled prices 
but lost before the High Court, in appeals preferred by the State of Andhra 
Pradesh. It was contended before this Court that the prices fixed by the 
Government are for the entire season, and the appellants are entitled payment 
E 
at the amended rates, regardless of the dates when the supplies were made, and 
that the word .. substitute" infers retrospective e.ffect. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court; 
HELD : Jn the absence of express words or appropriate language from \Vhich 
retrospectivity may be inferred. a notification takes effect from the date it is 
issued and not from any prior date. 
Statutes should not be construed so as to 
create new disabilities or obligations or impose new duties in respect of tran-
F 
sections which were complete at the time the Amending Act came into force. 
[778B--C} 
(2) The property in the goods having passed to the Government of Andhra 
Pradesh on the dates the supplies were made, the appellants had to be paid 
only at the controlled prices obtaining on the dates the sales were effected and 
not at the increased price which came into operation subsequently. [778-0] 
K.· A·p.payya Shanbhague & Co. v. The State of Mysore and Anr. (Un-
reported decision S.C. dated 20-4-19~2); The Union of lndia, r~presented by !he 
G 
Secretary, Ministry of Food & ARnculture, Gov:rnn1er1t of lndta, New ·Dellu v. 
Kan11ri Dan1odariah & Co. Alluri Venkatanaras1ah (1968} 1 An. W.R. 81 and 
Mani (;opal Mitra v. The State of Bihar (1969) 2 S.C.R. 411, followed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 805, 806 
and 972~977 of 1~73 
From the judgment and decree dated the 8th June 1971 and 23rd 
H 
November 1971 respectively of the IJ:igh Court of Andhra Pradesh 
at Hyderabad in Appeal Suit Nos. 766 of 1968, 18 of 1969, 779, 
780, 792 to 785 of 1968 respectively . 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
776 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1976] 3 S.C.R. 
F. S. Nariman, J. V. K. Gurunathan, T. V. Narasimhan Murty 
and A. Subha Rao, for the appellants. 
P. Ram Reddy and P. P. Rao, for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
JASWANT SINGH, J. 
This batch of Appeals Nos. 805, 806 and 
972 to 977 of 1973 by certificate from the judf!IIlents and decrees of 
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Appeals Nos. 766 ot 1968, 
18 of 1969, 779 of 1968, 780 of 1968, 782 of 1968 783 of 1971 
~84 of 1968 and 785 of 1968 raise a simple but an.futeresting ques~ 
hon namely, whether for the supplies of rice made by the appellants 
m January and February, 1964, they are to be paid price according 
to t!1e rate specified m the. Rice (Andhra Pradesl!) Price Control 
(Third Amendme.nt) Order, 1964 dated March 23, 1964 or according 
to the rate specified m the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control 
<?rder as it stood in 1963. 
The question arises in the followin

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.