Chakravartti, J. - (1.) Judgment in this appeal has been delayed, because after the arguments had been concluded, the parties wanted some time to consider for themselves and to confer with each other as to whether it would be possible to settle the dispute between them. After several adjournments, as many as four in number, we were ultimately informed that no settlement could be effected.
(2.) It then fell to us to consider, in view of certain facts brought to our notice after the conclusion of the arguments, whether it would at all be possible to make any effective order in this appeal, even if we took a view different from that of the learned Judge. After careful consideration of the matter in all its aspects, we have come to the regretful conclusion that it is not possible to make any effective order, even if we agreed with the appellant on the merits.
(3.) The position is as follows: The appellant moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a directive issued to him under paragraphs 3(3) (15) and 3(5) of the West Bengal Food grains (Intensive Procurement) Order, 1952, to sell to Government at a slated price and deliver to a certain rice mill 769 maunds of paddy. The appellant's case was that the law under which the directive had been issued was void, inasmuch as it did not either provide for compensation for the property to be taken or fix the amount of the compensation or specify the principles on which and the manner in which the compensation was to be determined and given. A Rule was issued in the first instance, but at the final hearing the learned trial Judge. Sinha, J, discharged it. He took the view that the law was to be sought not merely in the main Procurement Order, but also in several other subsidiary orders which had been promulgated on the same date and if one took all those orders together, one would find in them, a clear provision for the compensation to be given. In the learned Judge's view, the main order and the subsequent orders, all promulgated on the same date and published in the same issue of the Calcutta Gazette, were to be treated as simultaneous and as constituting a single body of law.;