Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.BHASKARAN, Y.V.ANJANEYULU
Dist.Collector, Chittoor - Appellant
Versus
Chittoor Dist.Groundnut Traders Assocn - Respondent
Decided On : 02-11-87
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 - DELEGATION OF POWER - LEVY ORDER - PROCUREMENT PRICE - MOVEMENT OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES - RESTRICTIONS - VALIDITY - ARTICLES 14, 19 (1) (G), 301 OF THE CONSTITUTION - CLAUSE 12 (2) OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH SCHEDULE COMMODITIES DEALERS (LICENSING AND DISTRIBUTION) ORDER, 1982 - VALIDITY - DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO DELIVER GROUNDNUT OIL - VALIDITY - COMPENSATION - CLAIM FOR - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The State Government of Andhra Pradesh issued directions to the millers and traders to deliver groundnut oil to the State Government at a specified price. The millers and traders challenged the validity of the directions, contending that the State Government did not have the power to impose restrictions on the movement of groundnut seeds and groundnut oil and that the agreements obtained by the Government were unenforceable in law.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the State Government did not have the power to issue the directions under Clause 12 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Schedule Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982, as the prior concurrence of the Central Government was not obtained. The Court also held that the agreements and undertakings obtained by the Government were not voluntary and were executed to avoid catastrophic results to the millers and traders. The Court further held that the impugned directions were violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. The Court also held that Clause 12 (2) of the 1982 Order did not confer power on the State Government to issue directions regulating the movement of essential commodities and to fix procurement price unilaterally without a specific levy order issued by the State Government with the prior concurrence of the Central Government.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Government had the power to issue directions to the millers and traders to deliver groundnut oil to the State Government at a specified price under Clause 12 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Schedule Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982? 2. Whether the agreements and undertakings obtained by the Government were voluntary? 3. Whether the impugned directions were violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution? 4. Whether Clause 12 (2) of the 1982 Order conferred power on the State Government to issue directions regulating the movement of essential commodities and to fix procurement price unilaterally without a specific levy order issued by the State Government with the prior concurrence of the Central Government?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The State Government did not have the power to issue the directions under Clause 12 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Schedule Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982, as the prior concurrence of the Central Government was not obtained. 2. The agreements and undertakings obtained by the Government were not voluntary and were executed to avoid catastrophic results to the millers and traders. 3. The impugned directions were violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. 4. Clause 12 (2) of the 1982 Order did not confer power on the State Government to issue directions regulating the movement of essential commodities and to fix procurement price unilaterally without a specific levy order issued by the State Government with the prior concurrence of the Central Government.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed all the writ appeals, the cross-objections, and the writ petition.
( 1 ) THE State Government of Andhra Pradesh and the concerned Officers, are the appellants in all the Writ Appeals. Cross-objections in Writ Appeals Nos. 1419, 1421 and 1423 are filed by the petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 11104, 10482 and 10479/86 respectively. Writ Petition No. 16728/86 is filed by Maankar Trading Company Adoni. It will be convenient to dispose of all these appeals. Cross-objections and the Writ Petition together, as common questions arise for consideration.
( 2 ) THE Writ Appeals are filed by the State questioning the correctness of the Judgement and order of our learned brother, Rama Rao J. , holding that the directions issued by the State Government, acting under Clause 12 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Schedule Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 (for short, the 1982 order) as violative of Articles 19 (1) (g) and 301 of the Constitution.
( 3 ) THE Cross-objections filed by the Writ petitioners above referred, question the correctness of the order of the learned single Judge refusing to entertain the claim for payment of compensation on the ground that disputed questions of fact are involved. In the Writ Petition filed the petitioners seek directions to the respondents 1 to 4 in the writ petition to pay to the petitioners the price calculated at the market rate prevailing in the locality on the date of sale for the various quantities of groundnut oil supplied to the 2nd respondent with interest at 12% p. a. from the date on which the amount became payable to the petitioners. Before adverting to the specific contention urged by the parties. we may briefly refer to the relevant facts.
( 4 ) WE are concerned with the years 1983 to 1985. At the relevant time, there was free trade in the groundnut seeds and oil. There was neither a ban nor restriction on the movement of groundnut seeds and groundnut oil from the State of Andhra Pradesh to the other States. There was no price control either. While so, in May, 1983 the Government found that the prices of groundnut oil had been shooting up in the State of Andhra Pradesh and that adequate quantities of oil were not available in the market. The Government found that groundnut oil dealers in the State were exporting groundnut seeds and oil to other States where favourable trade conditions existed causing thereby shortage of the commodities within the State. The Government felt that it should step-in to control the price and also the movement of the commodities.
( 5 ) ATTENTION of the licensing authorities and the Collectors was drawn by the Government in a letter dated 17-5-1983 to the above situation. The Collectors and the licensing authorities were told that they should exercise powers under Cl. 12 (2) of the 1982 Order and thereby ensure that groundnut seeds and oil are not moved out of the State. (Emphasis supplied ). The Collector of each District was instructed to ensure that all the groundnut seeds, peds and oil produced in the District are sold within the District and the State and are not moved out of the State. Instructions were also issued to impose a kind of voluntary levy by holding discussions with the millers. The Government further stated that oil millers and dealers should be warned to ensure that the prices are maintained around Rs. 14/- per Kg. of oil in the retail market and if the millers do not co- operate the Government would have to consider serious measures against them. Pursuant to the aforesaid instructions of the Government, action was taken by the Collectors and the licensing authorities to prevent movement of groundnut seeds and oil to outside States from the Districts. The millers and dealers were also called for entering into a dialogue with the authorities. Based on these deliberations, a Memoradum was issued by the Government on 6-12-1983 agreeing to remove the restriction on the movement of groundnut seeds and oil subject to the trade making available to the Government certain quantities of
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
