S.B.SINHA, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THESE appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 15.12.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in APO No. 291 of 2006, A.P.O.T. No. 401 to 406 of 2006 in WP Nos. 962, 966, 967, 969, 970, 971 and 972 of 2004 and A.P.O.T. No. 399 of 2006 in W.P. No. 1566 of 2004 and A.P.O.T. No. 400 of 2006 in W.P. No. 973 of 2004 respectively. Factual matrix being in narrow compass, we will notice the relevant facts. First Appellant is owner of a jute mill. In exercise of power conferred upon it under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, Government of India made an Order in the year 2000 known as "Jute and Jute Textile Control Order, 2000". By reason of the said order, powers were conferred on the Jute Commissioner to regulate stock of raw jute, fix price and control production thereof. In exercise of the power conferred upon him under the said Order, the Jute Commissioner issued Production Control Orders (PCO) to various jute mill owners directing them to manufacture 'B'Twill Gunny Bags of specified quality upon compulsory purchase of raw jute from the Corporation. Non-compliance of the directions was to result in application of penal provisions. Indisputably, the Jute Commissioner sent the particulars of the said Production Control Order to the Jute Corporation of India Ltd. for the purpose of issuing necessary sale contract in order to enable the Jute manufacturers to take delivery of the requisite quantities of raw jute specified in the production control Order which the jute manufacturers were required to compulsorily purchase from the Corporation.
(3.) INDISPUTABLY, again the Commissioner in exercise of its power conferred under Section 3(3) of the Control Order fixed the price of 50 kg B- Twill jute bags for the delivery in the month of December 2002 provisionally at Rs. 1712.77p per hundred bags. The price for the said bags was arrived at upon taking into account hundred percent JCI in raw jute linkage i.e. the mills should compulsorily purchase raw jutes only from the Jute Corporation of India. The quality of raw jute supplied by the respondent under the contract of sale was said to be of much inferior quality. However, factum of entering into a sale contract by the appellant with respondent No.1 is not in dispute. Admittedly, Appellants did not purchase raw jute from the respondent No.1 for the period of October 2003 to April, 2004. For fulfilling its undertakings, allegedly, they had to purchase raw jute on credit from the open market.;