- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The controversy raised in these cases hinges upon the interpretation of sub-clause (8-A) of clause 45 of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 and the circular of the Union of India dated 11/10/1985. The facts of CA No. 1826 of 1989 which lie in a short compass would be sufficient for disposal of all the appeals before us and are stated as under:
(3.) The respondent is an authorised retail dealer at Kanayannur Taluk, Emakulam District. He had purchased from the appellant's godown rice on 10/10/1985 and 11/10/1985 at the pre-revised rates for public distribution to the card-holders. On 11/10/1985, the Civil Supplies Officials issued instructions to the respondent and other retail dealers that the price of rice has been increased with effect from 13/10/1985 and the closing stock on 12/10/1985, should be ascertained and the difference of the price was to be deposited in the Treasury and challan was directed to be submitted within two days thereafter. If the difference of the rate would not be deposited in the Treasury or in the event of non-submission of the challan, action would be taken against the defaulters. By letter dated 28/11/1985, the Assistant Manager of the appellant-corporation called upon the respondent to pay the difference of the rate for the stock on the closing day of 9/10/1985 and the purchase from 10/10/1985 onwards till 11/10/19855. Calling in question of the said demand, writ petitions came to be filed. The learned Single Judge following the decision dated 19-6-1986 of the High court in Kerala State Wholesale Distributors' Federation v. Union of India had held that the respondent was not liable to refund the difference of the price for the stock on hand on closing day of 9/10/1986 and supplied on 10/10/1985 and 11/10/1985. The liability would arise only from the date when intimation of the revised rate thereof was given by the Civil Supply Officer. Since the intimation was given on 13/10/1985, for the stock on hand as on 12/10/1985 difference would be liable to be refunded at the revised rates from that date. The order was challenged in writ appeal and the division bench in the impugned order dated 14/1/1988 in Writ Appeal No. 597 of 1987 upheld the order of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal. Thus these appeals by special leave.;