AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kailasam, J.—These writ petitions were preferred by the producers of paddy in Thanjavur Dt. for the issue of a writ of Mandamus directing
the respondents to follow, in the matter of procuring paddy from the petitioners, the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act (Central Act X of
1955) and in particular, S. 3-B of the said Act, and the Madras Paddy and Rice (Declaration and Requisitioning of Stock) Order, 1967. The
Madras Paddy and Rice (Declaration and Requisitioning of Stocks) Order, 1967, provides for the declaration and requisition of stocks of paddy
and rice in order to secure their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices. Rule 4 empowers the officers mentioned the rein in writing to
require a person holding stocks of paddy or rice or both within the jurisdiction of that officer to sell the stocks after providing for his reasonable
requirements or a specified part of the stocks accordance with directions issued by the Government from time to time, to the Government or 10 an
officer or agent of the Government. Sub-R. (3) of R. 4 provides that every order of requisition shall specify the price payable for any paddy or rice
requisitioned and such price shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (Central Act X of 1955). S. 3-B of
the Essential Commodities Act (Central Act X of 1955) prescribes the procedure by which the price should be fixed. The person from whom
paddy or rice has been requisitioned shall be paid such price as may be specified in the order having regard to (1) the controlled price, if any, fixed
under S. 3-B or by or under any other law for the time being in force, for such grade or variety of foodgrains, (2) the price for such grade or
variety of foodgrains prevailing or likely to prevail during the postharvest period in the area to which that order applies. S. 3-B. thus requires the
authority fixing the price to take into account the controlled price and the price that was likely to prevail during the post-harvest period in the area
to which the requisitioning order applies. It is common ground that the price as required under the Essential Commodities Act (Central Act X of
1955) payable to a person from whom any stock of paddy or rice is requisitioned has not been fixed. Without such fixation of price the authorities
cannot require a person holding any stock of paddy or rice to sell the stock to the Government. In these cases the contention of the petitioners is
that without fixing the price of paddy as required under the Essential Commodities Act the Government are procuring paddy at Rs. 48, Rs. 45, and
Rs. 43 for the first, second and third varieties respectively and are compelling the producers to sell their paddy at those rates. These prices are
stated to have been determined under the Madras Paddy (Maximum Prices) Order, 1966. Whether any price had been fixed under the Madras
Paddy (Maximum Prices) Order 1966 is not relevant, as the price that is payable to a person from whom paddy has been requisitioned under the
Act is the one that is provided for under S. 3-B of the Essential Commodities Act (Central Act X of 1955).
The petitioners have averred that through its local officials the State of Madras are compelling the producers is their district to sell their paddy at
the abovementioned rate. The petitioners have also referred to various regulations and have alleged that they are compelled to part with their
paddy only to the procuring agents at prices quoted by them, which are cot in accordance with S. 3-B of Essential Commodities Act. It is also
alleged that the Government after arming themselves fully with all the powers of procuring paddy do not want to pay the producers the prices to
which they are entitled to under the Essential Commodities Act and that the conduct of the respondents is in direct and flagrant violation of the
provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. It is also alleged that, thought this court has pointed out in several writ petitions that the Government
are bound to pay the prices as provided in the Essential Commodities Act, there is no intention on the part of the State of Madras, to obey the
statutory provisions and pay the market price.
In the counter affidavit the District Supply Officer stated that had the Government requisitioned paddy under the Madras Paddy and Rice
(Declaration and Requisitioning of stock) Order 1967 and fixed the price payable therefor as laid down under that order, the landholder would not
be eligible to get any higher price than the maximum notified price. This statement is seriously disputed by the petitioners. That the price if fixed
would have been lower is no answer to the submission of the petitioners that the Government bad failed to fix the price of paddy as required under
the Essential Commodities Act. The plea of the District Supply officer in paragraph 3 of his counter affidavit that the quantities of paddy were
voluntarily delivered to the Government by the producers cannot stand scrutiny. The contention of the petitioners is that they are not paid a proper
price and that they are compelled to part with their paddy. It is rather difficult to follow the reasoning in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, which
is as follows:
It is submitted that the expression ''procurement'' has been used to denote only purchases made by the Government, of quantities voluntarily
delivered by producers in contradistinction with the requisitioning of paddy and rice by the Government under the provisions of the Madras Paddy
and Rice (Declaration and Requisitioning of stocks) Order 1967. It is submitted that the prices referred to in the affidavit by the petitioners are the
prices fixed by the Government for quantities delivered to the Government or to their agents. In so far as requisition under the Madras Paddy and
Rice (Declaration and Requisitioning of Stocks) Order 1967 is concerned, the prices payable might be different,
The District Supply Officer has denied in general terms the compulsory procurement. One cannot normally expect the producer to voluntarily
deliver his paddy if in land he is entitled to a higher price. The District Supply Officer does not state that he was the officer who procured from the
petitioners and the petitioners gave up their paddy voluntarily. He is not therefore competent to say that the petitioners had voluntarily parted with
their produce. The petitioners are emphatic that quantities of paddy were taken forcibly without their consent. It is not natural for the petitioners to
deliver the paddy voluntarily for a less a price of only the petitioners had voluntarily delivered their produce, it is inconceivable that they would have
approached this court spending their time and money. When the prices that are payable under the Madras Paddy and Rice (Declaration and
Requisitioning of Stocks) Order of 1967 are different, as stated by the respondents in their counter, the petitioners are entitled to them and the
respondents cannot insist on the petitioners accepting the price that had been fixed by the authorities for an entirely different purpose. It was
submitted that the authorities are bound to pay prices under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act only if there is an order of requisition.
The Government Pleader submitted that in all these cases there had been no order of requisition and the petitioners are not entitled to the price
under the Essential Commodities Act. This argument is surprising, for before a person could be required compulsorily to deliver his paddy he
should be paid the price as provided for under the statute. The State cannot be heard to state that by avoiding to follow the procedure laid down
under the Act they can require the producers to part with their paddy for a lesser price. The plea that the paddy had been delivered voluntarily has
to be summarily rejected as the provision of the Act is clear that the price payable is as provided under the Essential Commodities Act. It had also
been made clear by this court in several decisions. It is regrettable that complaints about the procurement in violation of the law should be made
repeatedly in writ petitions. It is the duty of the Government to direct the officers to follow the procedure laid down under the Madras Paddy and
Rice (Declaration and Requisitioning of stocks) Order and pay the price as set out in the Essential Commodities Act. I am convinced that there had
been a clear and deliberate contravention of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act to procure the paddy illegally for a lesser price. In the
circumstances the action of the authorities will have to be found as illegal. The paddy that had been illegally taken from the petitioners without
fixation of price as required under the Essential Commodities Act will have to be returned to them. The respondent is directed to return the paddy
taken from the petitioners within two months. In the event of the paddy procured having been disposed of by the Government, the Government
would return an equal amount of paddy of the same quality. All the petitions are allowed with costs. The respondents will pay each petitioner Rs.
250 as costs.