B. Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) All these nine mandamus appeals were heard analogously as those arise out of nine different writ -applications filed by the Respondents herein against the common Appellant and are directed against an order dated July 28, 2006 passed by a learned single Judge by which His Lordship disposed of those nine writ applications after rejecting the application filed by the Appellant in those writ -applications for a direction upon the writ -Petitioners to pay the carrying -cost along with interest which were lying with the learned advocate -on record of the writ Petitioners as per an earlier interim order passed in those writ -applications.
(2.) Nine different writ -application is were filed by the Respondents herein against the Appellant who figured as the Respondent No. 1 and the Jute Commissioner, who appeared as Respondent No. 2 in those writ -applications wherein they prayed for the following relief: (a) A declaration be passed that the Respondent No. 2 does not have any power, competence and/or authority to direct and/or order the Petitioners to compulsoriiy purchase raw jute from the Respondent No. 1 for effecting supply of B -Twill gunny bags of 665 gms. (b) A writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the Respondents not to force the Petitioners to compulsoriiy purchase raw jute from the Respondent No. 1 for effecting supply of B -Twill gunny bags of 665 gms under the various production control orders. (c) A writ of and/or order and or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the Respondents to allocate and supply consignment of raw jute as per productivity norms of Jute Manufacturers' Development Council for manufacture of B -Twill jute bags of 665 gms. (d) A writ of and/or, order and/or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued commanding the Respondent No. 2 to desist from forcing the Petitioners to supply B -Twill gunny bags at the lower of the price prevailing for the period month as mentioned in the individual Production Control Orders and that prevailing for the period subsequent thereto in the event your Petitioners are otherwise unable to supply B -Twill gunny bags within the period as mentioned in the individual purchase order. (e) A writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of prohibition do issue prohibiting the Respondents from not allotting the Petitioners' allotment of supply of B -Twill gunny bags to various agencies with effect from 1st June, 2004 onwards on the alleged ground of the Petitioner No. 1's alleged failure to purchase raw jute compulsorily from JCI; (f) A writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of certiorari do issue directing the Respondents to produce before this Hon'ble Court the entire records of this case so that conscionable justice may be done. (g) Rule Nisi in terms of prayers (a) to (f) above; (h) An interim order issue directing the Respondents not to force the Petitioners to compulsorily purchase raw jute from the Respondent No. 1 for effecting supply of B -Twill gunny bags of 665 gms as per the various purchase orders. (i) An interim order do issue directing the Respondents to allocate and supply consignment of raw jute as per productivity norms of Jute Manufacturers' Development Council for manufacture of B -Twill jute bags of 665 gms. (j) An interim order do issue restraining the Respondent No. 2 from. forcing the Petitioners to supply B -Twill gunny bags at the lower of the price prevailing for the period/month as mentioned in the individual Production Control Orders and that prevailing for the period subsequent thereto in the event your Petitioners are otherwise unable to supply B -Twill gunny bags within the period as mentioned in the individual purchase order. (k) An interim order do issue permitting the Petitioners to supply B -Twill gunny bags at the prices prevailing on the month of issuance of the production control orders even in case supplies are made in the succeeding months. (l) An itnerim order do issue restraining the Respondents from not allotting the Petitioners' allotment of supply of B -Twill gunny bags to various agencies with effect from 1st June, 2004 onwards on the alleged ground of the Petitioner No. 1's alleged failure to purchase raw jute compulsorily from JCI; (m) Ad interim order in terms of prayers (h) to (I) above; (n) Pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper;
(3.) The case made out by the writ Petitioners may be summed up thus: (a) The writ Petitioner No. 1 is a limited company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its office at the place mentioned in the cause title of the writ application. The writ Petitioner owned eight jute mills. By a notification published in the official gazette in exercise of power conferred under Sec. 3 of the Essential commodities Act 1955, the Central Government had issued the Jute and Jute textiles Control Order, 2000, inter alia, giving power to the jute Commissioner to fix price, control production of jute textiles and regulate stock of raw jute. (b) The said Control Order 2000 was further amended by a notification dated November 1, 2002 by which Clause 5 of the Control Order was amended. Clause 3 of the said Control Order had conferred power to the Jute Commissioner to notify the minimum price at which any variety of raw jute or any grade or specifications of such variety of raw jute may be purchased or sold and different price could be fixed for different order or different variety of grades and specifications of raw jute subject to the condition that such price was based on the minimum support price fixed by the Central Government. In fixing such price or prices, the Jute Commissioner should have regard to the quality of the raw jute or jute textiles, the railway freight and other expenses necessary for the transport of raw jute or jute textiles from the producing centre to the area or areas in relation to which such price or prices is or are fixed, estimated cost of production necessary to make the same available at the fair price or any other relevant factor. (c) Para 3 of Clause 3 of the said Control Order had conferred upon the Jute Commissioner the power to notify from time to time the maximum or minimum price or both at which any variety of jute bags or any grade or specifications of such variety as may be purchased or sold for use under the Jute Packaging Materials (compulsory use in packing commodities) Act, 1987. (d) Clause 5 of the said Control Order gave power to the Jute Commissioner to specify the maximum and minimum quantity of raw jute, which a jute manufacturer may have in his possession. The amended provision is of Clause 5 (I) of the said Control Order had further given power to the Jute Commissioner to specify the maximum of minimum quantity of raw jute which a manufacturer should purchase from any specified person or agency, having regard to the Para (a) to (g) of Clause 5 (2) of the aid Control Order. (e) The office of the Jute Commissioner, thereafter allocated production control orders on various jute manufacturers for supplying diverse quantities of B -Twill bags to such persons and agencies as may be specified by the Director General, supplies and disposal. Such Production Control Orders are well placed by the Office of the Jute Commissioner on various jute mills depending on the capacity of the jute mills. (f) In such Production Control Orders, the jute manufacturers were directed under Clause 5 (1) of the Jute and Jute Textiles Control Order, 2000, to compulsorily purchase the quantities of raw jute specified therein from the Jute Corporation of India Limited against the order of the B -Twill bags so placed on the jute manufacturers. A sample copy of the Production Control Order issued by the office of the Jute Commissioner was annexed to the writ application. (g) After the office of the Jute Commissioner placed the Production Control Orders on the jute mills, the office of the Jute Commissioner sent the particulars of such Production Control Order to the Jute Corporation of India Limited with the request to the Jute Corporation of India Limited to issue necessary sale -contract in order to enable the jute manufacturers to take delivery of quantities of raw jute specified in the Production Control Order which the jute manufacturers were required to compulsorily purchase from the Jute Corporation of India Limited against the Production Control Order for B -Twill bags placed on the jute manufacturers by the office of the Jute Commissioner. (h) In the Production Control Orders issued from the office of the Jute Commissioner it was clearly mentioned that for the purpose of manufacturing B -twill jute bags, a specified quantity of raw jute would have to be purchased from the Respondent No. 1. Thus, it was clear that the raw jute to be purchased from the Respondent No. 1 would have to be used by the writ Petitioners for manufacturing and supplying the quantity of those bags in terms of the Production Control Order issued by the Jute Commissioner. (i) The compulsory purchase of the raw jute from the Jute Corporation of India as per specific direction of the Jute Commissioner issued under Clause 5 of the Control Order was always linked only to the Production Control Order issued and/or requisition for production of jute bags issued by the Jute Commissioner in favour of the concerned jute mills. Compulsory purchase of raw jute from the Jute Corporation of'India was never linked with th direct orders procured by any jute mill. (j) Subsequently by a further letter dated December 2, 2002, the Jute Commissioner in exercise of powers conferred under Sec. 3 (3) of the Control Order fixed the ex -factory 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 had been computed after taking into account hundred per cent JCI is raw jute linkage i.e. the mills should compulsorily purchase raw jutes only from the Jute Corporation of India. (k) The quality of raw jute that was supplied by the Respondent No. 1 under the sale -contracts was of much inferior quality than that mentioned or specified in the sale -contract. From time to time, several representations in this regard were made by the writ -Petitioners to the Respondents and majority of the consignments of raw jute supplied by the Jute Corporation of India were of inferior quality and with those materials, it was not possible to adhere to the norms laid down by the Jute Manufacturers Development Council for manufacturing B -Twill jute bags of 665 gms. (l) inasmuch as the writ -Petitioners were statutorily obliged to purchase quantities of raw jute from the Respondent No. 1 in order to fulfil their obligation under the Production Control Order issued by the Jute Commissioner, the writ Petitioners had no other alternative but to enter into the sale contract with the Respondent No. 1. (m)The Respondent No. 1, however, taking advantage of the Letters of Credit, invoked the same and realised the full payment for the consignment so supplied on the basis of nominal weight without waiting to ascertain the actual weight or the fact, whether the consignment of raw jute so supplied were as per specifications mentioned in the sale contract or as per bye -laws and rules of East India Jute and Hessian Exchange. (n) The Respondent No. 1 was supplying inferior quality of raw jute with impunity knowing fully well that the Respondent No. 1 would be able to realise the full value of consignment of raw jute supplied by invoking the Letters of Credit irrespective of the fact whether or not consignment conforms to the norms of the Jute Manufacturers Development Council and specifications mentioned in the sale contract. Moreover, the jute bags could not be made from such inferior quality of goods nor could those raw jutes be sold in the open market. (o) In view of the inaction on the part of the Respondent No. 1 in supplying raw jute as per specifications laid down in the sale -contract and as per the norms of the Jute Manufacturers Development Council, the writ Petitioners were suffering business loss. (p) The Jute Mills survived only by reason of purchase of raw jute from open market. They could avail of usual trade credit for three months whereas having been compelled to purchase the raw jute in accordance with the linkage from the Jute Corporation of India, the jute mills were required to make advance payment and thereafter, they received the materials and that too, of inferior quality after one and half months or two months. (q) For the reasons enumerated above, the writ Petitioners could not purchase the raw jute from the Respondent No. 1 for the period from October, 2003 to April, 2004. However, in order to ensure that it did not fail to supply B -Twill gunny bags to the various procurement agencies, the Petitioners had to purchase the shortfall of the raw jute on credit from the open market and had to cause supplied thereof after conversion of the same. (r) Despite causing regular supplies, the Respondent No. 2 recently threatened that wuld not allot any further material under the Production Control Order with effect from the month of June, 2004 onwards inasmuch as the writ Petitioners allegedly failed and neglected to purchase the raw jute from Respondent No. 1 in the ratio as was directed in the various Production Control Orders. In threatening to take such coercive and punitive action against the Petitioners, the Respondent No. 2 wrongfully and illegally failed to take into consideration to the fact that in spite of the hindrances and predicaments of the Petitioners as indicated above, they had caused regular supplies of the gunny bags as per Production Control Order. (s) In the event of non -purchase of the linked quantity of jute, the Respondent No. 1 was entitled to levy a sum or Rs. 25 per quintal per month as carrying charge and further, late delivery charge at the rate of 2 per cent per month subject to a maximum of 5 per cent for delay in supply of B -Twill gunny bags. Therefore, when such penal measures are aleady invoked,the threat onthe part of the Respondent No. 2 to deny the Petitioners' further allotment of supply was wholly arbitrary, wrongful, unreasonable and illegal and such decision amounted to double jeopardy.;