9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Clause 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) and Restriction on Sale Order, 1967. 2. Applicability of the Procurement Order to millers who do not hold foodgrains dealers' licenses. 3. Compliance requirements under Clause 3(3) of the Procurement Order. 4. Legality of the Procurement Order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. 5. Definition and applicability of "notified price" versus "market rate." Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Clause 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) and Restriction on Sale Order, 1967 The main issue in these writ petitions is the validity of Clause 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) and Restriction on Sale Order, 1967. The court examined whether this clause, which mandates millers to sell a specified percentage of rice to government agents at a notified price, is legally enforceable. The court found that the Procurement Order was issued under the powers conferred by the Essential Commodities Act, specifically Section 3. The object of the Procurement Order is to regulate the sale and movement of rice within Andhra Pradesh to maintain price levels and ensure the availability of rice at reasonable prices to consumers. 2. Applicability of the Procurement Order to Millers Who Do Not Hold Foodgrains Dealers' Licenses The petitioners, who are millers and dealers, argued that the rice levy should apply only to dealers and not to millers who do not hold licenses to trade in rice. They contended that they merely perform milling operations for hire and do not produce or manufacture rice. The court noted that Clause 3(1) applies to millers who produce or manufacture rice. However, the counter affidavit filed by the Assistant Secretary to the Government admitted that millers who mill third-party paddy are exempt from this clause, provided they comply with Clause 3(3). 3. Compliance Requirements Under Clause 3(3) of the Procurement Order Clause 3(3) requires millers and dealers who come into possession of paddy or rice not their own to furnish particulars to the Enforcement Officer and the Collector. The court emphasized that it is the responsibility of the party claiming exemption to prove compliance with these requirements. If the petitioners had already furnished the required particulars and the authorities still issued notices, they could have challenged the notices under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court found the writ petitions premature as the petitioners had not yet exhausted the available administrative remedies. 4. Legality of the Procurement Order Under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act The petitioners argued that the Procurement Order was made in excess of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. The court upheld the validity of Section 3, noting that it aims to maintain or increase supplies of essential commodities and ensure their equal distribution at fair prices. The court found that the Procurement Order, issued under various provisions of Section 3, was within the legal powers conferred upon the State Government by the Central Government. 5. Definition and Applicability of "Notified Price" Versus "Market Rate" The petitioners contended that the "notified price" fixed under the Andhra Pradesh Rice (Procurement Ex. Mill Prices) Order, 1970, should not apply as it had been superseded. They argued that they should be paid the market rate for levy rice. The court clarified that the notified price is fixed after considering relevant factors, including the cost of paddy, conversion charges, transport, and marginal profit, ensuring that dealers or millers do not suffer losses. The court rejected the argument that the notified price is not a controlled price, emphasizing that the term "control" includes price regulation. The court concluded that the petitioners could urge for payment at the market rate before appropriate authorities if no price had been fixed or notified. Conclusion The court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no merit in the arguments presented. The Procurement Order was upheld as valid and enforceable, and the petitioners were advised to comply with the administrative requirements before seeking judicial intervention.
|
