- (1.) RAVI S. Dhavan, J. This writ petition has been pending at the High Court for more than 14 years. After perusing the record and having heard Counsel for the parties, it does give a reflection to the Court on why cooperative society farming in the State of Uttar Pradesh may have failed.
(2.) THE issue apparently has been created by the State respondents. There is no issue on facts that the petitioner, St. Joseph Cooperative Farming Society, was incorporated in the District of Rampur, Tehsil Bilaspur. The President of the Cooperative Society, aforesaid, is one Reverred Father Joseph Puthett. As agriculture is the main activity of the Cooperative Society, for the time being it is accepted that they are bound by all the laws which regulate agriculture or agricul tural produce. The controversies raised by the State-respondents relate to about 20 years ago, the Rabi season of 1974-75. At that time on 7 April 1975, the State of Uttar Pradesh had issued the U. P. Wheat (Levy, Regulation of Trade and Control of Move ment) Order, 1975. The Court will refer to this as the 1975 Control Order. It was issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. One essential fact which needs to be kept in mind is that the applicability of this 1975 Control Order to the petitioner was being made an issue. An aspect on which there is no issue is that the State-respondents ac cept that the petitioner is a Cooperative Society. The revenue records record it so. Hereinafter began the misunderstanding between the petitioner and the State respondents. The nature of misunderstand ings can be classified in two parts; (a) a local level bureaucracy not receptive to listening to agriculturists and (b) not even making any attempt to find out on what the ap plicability of the law may be.
(3.) FOR the season 1974-75, a demand of 1051. 10 quintal was made from the Cooperative Society, as its obligation to supply levy wheat. Levy wheat is meant for the public distribution system. If it had to be given, then, it must be given. But, the Cooperative Society indicated the District Administration, when this demand was made, that the Control Order is not ap plicable to it for the simple reason that it is not one unit and its incorporation is such that the members who have joined to incor porate the society may be considered as a unit individually. The District Administra tion would not pay heed to the contentions of the Cooperative Society. They treated the petitioner Cooperative Society as one unit and insisted on the demand for the supply of levy wheat. In between what had happened was that earlier this Cooperative Society had filed two writ petitions (Writ Petition Nos. 4035 and 6856 of 1955) and the Standing Counsel to the State of Uttar Pradesh made a formal statement before the High Court that the Levy Order stood withdrawn. On this statement of the Stand ing Counsel the writ petitions were dis missed. This statement was made on 31 Oc tober, 1977. But, even though the 1975 Con trol Order had been withdrawn, the State of Uttar Pradesh required and received from the petitioner Cooperative Society, durinf the year, 1977-78, 432. 60 quintals and 207. 23 quintals respectively as levy wheat. In the counter affidavit, the fact that the petitioner Cooperative Society supplied this wheat to the State of Uttar Pradesh is not denied, but the submission made is that it was not levy wheat. There is nothing in the Counter affidavit as a plausible explanation under what circumstances without the 1975 Control Order, the petitioner Cooperative Society sold wheat to the State Government. Even if the levy which was demanded for the season 1974-75 could be sustained, with the supply of 639-83 quintals during the subsequent years when the 1975 Control Order did not exist at best left a balance of 111. 27. Now of the issues which remain is the aspect whether levy of the year 1974-75 as was being demanded from the petitioner Cooperative Society would be as if a demand was being made from an individual or from a corporate body. What the State respondents forgot was that the 1975 Con trol Order itself makes a clarification in explaining the term 'individual' and a 'producer' An individual may also be a producer. But, a producer may be an in dividual as also "more than one individual". The term 'individual' is to be found in Clause 2 (f ). A reference to 'producer' and the expression 'more than one individual' is to be found in Clause 3. This has to be as it is not unknow in India that an agricultural holding may also be the holding of a Hindu Undivided Family. Yet though not prevalent an agricultural holding may be possessed by a corporate entity also. Lack of this ex perience is the misunderstanding of the is sues in the present writ petition.;