JUDGMENT.- The defendant in O .S. No. 56 of 1967 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mayuram is the appellant herein. The matter lies within a very narrow compass. The Government of India promulgated an order under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, on 7th January, 1964 called the Madras Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as the Levy Order). Clause 3 of this Order provided that every licensed dealer and every licensed miller shall sell to the Purchase Officer at the controlled price at the commencement of the Order, if he is functioning in the district of Thanjavur, twenty per cent, of the quantity of rice equivalent of as twenty per cent, of the quantity of paddy held in stock by him at such commencement. Since we are concerned only with a licensed dealer or licensed miller in the district of Thanjavur, it is not necessary to refer to the other sub-clauses of this clause. “Controlled price” has been defined in clause 2 (a) of this Order as meaning the maximum price fixed for that variety in an order made under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and for the time being in force. Sub-clause (3) of clause 3 also provided that the rice required to be sold to the State Government under sub-clause (1) shall be delivered by the licensed dealer or the licensed miller to the Purchase Officer or to such other person as may be authorised by him to take delivery on his behalf. Having regard to the definition of the term “ controlled price” in clause 2 (a), the Government of India simultaneously promulgated on 7th January, 1964 itself another Order under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, called the Rice (Madras) Price Control Order, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Price Control Order). In the schedule of this Order the maximum price of different varieties of rice had been fixed. We are concerned in this case with kattai samba rice and that has been mentioned in serial No. 5 in the said schedule, according to which the price per quintal was Rs. 46.22. Therefore, a combined reading of clause 3 (1) of the Levy Order and clause 2 read with the Schedule of the Price Control Order will lead to the conclusion that, as on the date, namely, 7th January 1964, every licensed dealer and every) licensed miller was under an obligation to sell twenty per cent, of the stock he had on the date of the commencement of the Orders at the rate prescribed in the schedule to the Price Control Order 1964. This Price Control Order dated 7th January, 1964 was amended by the Government of India by the Amendment Order, dated 23rd March, 1964. By this Amendment Order the maximum prices fixed in the schedule were altered and a new schedule was substituted in the place of the old schedule contained in the Order dated 7th January, 1964. As per the new schedule, the price of kattai samba was given as Rs. 51-58 per quintal as against the price of Rs. 46-22 per quintal orginally mentioned in the schedule thereby providing for an increase of the price of Rs.536 per quintal. The respondent in this case admittedly supplied a total quantity of 2,386-82 quintals of kattai samba rice between 23rd March, 1964 and 23rd June, 1964. With reference to this supply he claimed the price at the rate prescribed in the Amended Order which came into force on 23rd March, 1964. On the other hand, the appellant herein, namely, the State of Tamil Nadu, paid him at the rate prescribed in the original Order only. It is to recover the difference between the two the present suit was instituted. It may be mentioned here that the respondent himself billed the rice only at the old rate, and he contended that the officers insisted upon his preparing the bill only at the old rate and that, therefore, he prepared the bill at the old rate without prejudice to his right to claim according to law at the new rate. This gave rise to an issue in the suit, namely, one of estoppel. But we are not concerned with that issu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document