Dhanyalakshmi Rice Mills: Shrinivasa Satnarayana Bung: Dhanyalakshmi Rice Mills: Nithin Kumar Company: Nithin Kumar Company: Seetharamanjaneya Rice Mills: Seetharamanjaneya Rice Mills: Rama Rice And Oil Mills: Tenali Sri Ramalingaswara Rice Factory: Prade vs Commissioner Of Civil Supplies: Union Of India: Commissioner Of Civil Supplies: Union Of India: Union Of India: State Of A. P. : State Of A. P. : State Of A. P. : State Of A. P. : Union Of India: State Of A. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1976 Supreme(SC) 51

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY, C.J.I., M.H. BEG, R.S. SARKARIA AND P.N. SHINGHAL, JJ.
Dhanyalakshmi Rice Mills etc., Appellants
Versus
The Commissioner of Civil Supplies and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2390-2391, 2423-2437, 2584-2586, of 1972; 604 of 1975 281-286; 539-540, 2019-2034, 637, 1837-1842 of 1973; and 653-662 of 1974,
Decided on 16-2-1976.
(1) Civil Appeals Nos. 2390-2391 of 1972 :
(2) Civil Appeal No. 604 of 1975 :
Shirinivas Satnarayana Bung, Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
(3) Civil Appeals Nos. 2423-2437 of 1972 :
Dhanyalakshmi Rice Mills etc., Appellants
Versus
Commissioner of Civil Supplies and another, Respondents.
(4) Civil Appeals No. 2584-2586 of 1972 :
Nitin Kumar and Co. ect., Appellants
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
(5) Civil Appeals Nos. 281-286 of 1973 :
Sri Seetharamanjaneya Rice Mills etc., Appellants
Versus
State of A.P. and others, Respondents.
(6) Civil Appeals Nos. 539-540 of 1973 :
Sri Rama Rice and Oil Mills etc., Appellants
Versus
State of A.P. and others, Respondents.
(7) Civil Appeals Nos. 2019-2034 of 1973 :
The Tanali Sri Ramalingaswara Rice Factory etc., Appellants
Versus
State of A.P. and others, Respondents.
(8) Civil Appeals Nos. 653-662 of 1974 :
M/s. Pradeep and Co., Appellant
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
(9) Civil Appeals Nos. 637, 1837-1942 of 1973 :
Chadisetty Samaraju and Sons etc., Appellants
Versus
State of A.P. and others, Respondents.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. K. Sen, Sr. Advocate (in C. As. 2390-91 and 2423-2437/72); Mr. P. A. Chowdhary, Advocate (In C. As. 2019-2034/73); Mr. N. Bhaskar Rao, Advocate (in C. As. 2390-2391, 2423-2437/72), Mr. B. Kanta Rao, Advocate, for the Appellants in C. As. 2390-2391/72, 2423-2437/72 and 533-540, 2019-2034/72, Mr. A. K. Sen, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. S. Markandeya and Mr. N. Madhusudan Raj, Advocates, 2245 with him). for the Appellants in C. As. 604/75, 2584-2586/72 and 653-662/74; Mr. A. K. Sen, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. N. Madhusudan Raj and Mr. G. N. Rao, Advocates with him). for the Appellants in 281-286/73; (Mr. P. Ram Reddy, Sr. Advocate, Mr. P. P. Rao, Advocate with him). for respondents in C. As.2390-2391 and 2423-2437/72, 281-282, 539, 540, 2019-2034/73; rr. 2-4 in C. A. No. 604/75, 653-662/74 and 2584-2586/72 rr. 1-3 in C. A. 1842.73 and for rr. in C. A. 637/73, 1837-1841/73: Mr. P. P. Rao, Advocate, (C. A. 604/75) Mr. S. P. Nayar, Advocat, Mr. Girish Chandra, Advocate, for R. 1 in C. As. 604/75 and 653-662/74 and rr. in C. As. 2584-2586/72.
SUPREME COURT WOULD NOT NORMALLY INTERFERE WITH ORDER OF HIGH COURT PASSED IN exercise OF ITS DISCRETION REFUSING TO GRANT A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Advocates:
A.K.SEN GUPTA, B.Kanta Rao, G.N.Rao, GIRISH CHANDRA, N.BHASKAR RAO, N.MADHUSUDHANA RAJ, P.A.CHAUDHARY, P.P.Rao, P.RAM REDDY, S.Markandaya, S.P.NAIR

Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Indian Contract Act - Sections 72 and 21 - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 5 and 3 (1) - Refund the sums of money - maintenance - Appellants filed the writ petitions for an appropriate writ or order directing the respondent State of Andhra Pradesh to refund the sums of money collected from the appellants as administrative surcharges - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 various control orders have been issued for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices - Control Orders contemplate regulation or prohibition of production, supply and distribution of essential commodities and trade and commerce – Held, Respondents do not support demand for administrative charges either as a tax or as a fee but as a term and condition, of permit and as a term of agreement between the parties for the maintenance and supervision expenses for scheme for export permits of rice from one block to another within the State or outside State - State collected administrative charges but could not grant permits the State refunded moneys to such person. It is only where millers have obtained permits and taken advantage thereof State contends that there is no mistake and that the payments were made voluntarily with full knowledge of facts - Appeals dismissed

JUDGMENT

RAY C. J. :— These appeals are certificate from the common judgment dated 27th March, 1972 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the writ petitions of the appellants.

2. The appellants filed the writ petitions for an appropriate writ or order directing the respondent State of Andhra Pradesh to refund the sums of money collected from the appellants as administrative surcharges.

3. The appellants are dealers in foodgrains and held licences issued in accordance with the provisions of relevant statutes and control orders.

4. Under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 various control orders have been issued for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices. The Control Orders contemplate regulation or prohibition of production, supply and distribution of essential commodities and trade and commerce therein.

5. The State Government exercising powers delegated to it by the Central Government in accordance with the provisionsof the Essential Commodities Act issued several measures to achieve the objectives of the Control Orders.

6. The Government of Andhra Pradesh introduced a scheme known as "Incentive Export Scheme." Under that Scheme all millers who delivered 50 per cent of their purchases to the Food Corporation of India towards mill levy would be eligible for export under the scheme. Incentive export permits were to be granted in the ratio of 2:3. The ratio meant that if a miller delivered two additional wagons to the Food Corporation of India he would be entitled to export three wagons on private trade account. The last date for delivering rice to the Food Corporation of India was fixed as 20 May, 1971. The last date for issue of permits was fixed as 31 May, 1971.

7. Permits were of four types. The A type of permits was for export from one block to another within the State. Under these permits administrative charges were Rupees 250 per quintal. The B type of permits was for export from the State of Andhra Pradesh to other States in the South. The administrative charges under the B type permits were Rs. 10/- per quintal. The C type permits was for export to any State outside Andhra Pradesh. The administrative charges for C type permits were Rs. 8/- per quintal. The fourth type of permits was for export of the broken rice under the A type or the C type permits and the surcharges were Rs. 1.00 per quintal.

8. By an order dated 24 July, 1967 under Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 the Central Government directed that the powers conferred on it by Section 3 (1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to make orders to provide for matters specified in clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (h), (i) and (j) of sub-section (2) thereof shall, in relation to foodstuffs be exercisable also by a State Government subject to the conditions (1) that such power shall be exercised by a State Govt. subject to such directions, if any as may be issued by the Central Govt. in this behalf, and (2) that before making any order relating to any matter specified in clauses (a) and (c) or in regard to regulation of transport of any foodstuffs under clause (d) of the Section 3 (2) of the Essential Commodities Act, the State Government shall also obtain prior concurrence of the Central Government.

9. By an order dated 30 September, 1967, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, the Central Government made an amendment to the order dated 24 July, 1967. The amendment was to the effect that before making an order relating to any matter specified in clauses (a), (c) and (f) or in regard to distribution or disposal of foodstuffs to places outside the State or in regard to regulation of transport of any foodstuff under clauses (d) the State Government shall obtain the prior concurrence of the Central Government.

10. The State of Andhra Pradesh by an order dated 22 July, 1968 pursuant to the repres

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1976 Supreme(SC) 51

Cases Referred (10)