1983 (3) TMI 296 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Propriety of the fixation of retention price of white printing paper.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to fix retention price.
3. Territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petitions.
4. Maintainability of appeals against interim orders.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Propriety of the Fixation of Retention Price of White Printing Paper:
The respondents (writ petitioners) challenged the fixation of the retention price of Rs. 4,200/- per metric tonne for white printing paper by the Central Government with effect from December 24, 1981. They argued that this price was inadequate and would force them to close down their business unless allowed to sell at Rs. 6,300/- per metric tonne. The learned Judge initially allowed an interim order permitting the sale at the higher price, which was later enhanced to Rs. 6,600/- per metric tonne. The Central Government's retention price was intended to ensure the supply, equitable distribution, and availability of white printing paper at a fair price, taking into account production costs.

2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Fix Retention Price:
The High Court concluded that it has no jurisdiction to permit manufacturers to sell white printing paper at a price different from that fixed by the Central Government. The Court emphasized that it could set aside the retention price fixed by the Central Government at the final hearing and direct reconsideration, but it cannot fix retention prices through interim orders. The impugned interim orders, which increased the retention price, were thus deemed beyond the Court's jurisdiction and were set aside.

3. Territorial Jurisdiction of the High Court to Entertain the Writ Petitions:
The registered offices and mills of the respondents are situated outside West Bengal, and the Paper (Control) Order, 1979, was issued by the Central Government in New Delhi. The writ petitions did not aver that any sale of levy paper occurred in West Bengal or that there was any stock of white printing paper in the state. The Court found that the mere presence of sales offices in Calcutta or the receipt of allotment letters there did not constitute a part of the cause of action within the territorial limits of West Bengal. Therefore, the Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions.

4. Maintainability of Appeals Against Interim Orders:
A preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the appeals since the appellants did not appeal against the subsequent interim orders enhancing the retention price from Rs. 6,300/- to Rs. 6,600/- per metric tonne. The Court overruled this objection, stating that the subsequent interim orders were modifications of the earlier ones, and thus, the present appeals were maintainable.

Conclusion:
The High Court set aside the impugned interim orders, allowing the appeals. The applications for stay were deemed disposed of along with the order, and no costs were awarded. The respondents' prayer for certificates for appeal to the Supreme Court was disallowed, as the appeals were against interim orders and did not involve questions of law of general importance.