- (1.) Number of rice mill owners have filed these Civil Writ Petitions Nos.489, 652, 1949, 4126 and 8229 of 1991 to seek direction to the respondents to pay the price of levy rice as was prevalent at the time of taking the rice from the petitioner. Number of rice millers have joined together in each writ petition to espouse this cause, which is common. Accordingly, these writ petitions are being disposed of together through this common order. The facts have been noted from Civil Writ Petition No. 1949 of 1991.
(2.) The petitioners claim that they are registered under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 and under the Central Sales Tax Act and are also the licence holder under the Punjab Food Grains Dealers Licensing and Price Controlled Order, 1978. As the nomenclature would suggest, the petitioners are mainly involved in the business of purchase of paddy from the market in Punjab for the purpose of shelling the same into rice. 75% of the rice after shelling is procured by the respondents in terms of the Punjab Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1983.
(3.) It is averred in the petition that the Government had provided special assistance to the farmers for sale of their paddy to millers before 13.10.1989 at the rate of Rs.10/- per quintal for each variety of paddy and the farmers, who had sold their paddy at the old support price but less than the revised support price, were to be paid the difference only i.e. the revised support price minus the original price paid to the farmers in the shape of special assistance. This was in order to give special assistance to the farmers in the form of support price for their paddy produce sold by the farmers to the millers or other dealers in the form of a bonus at the rate of Rs. 10/- per quintal. Food Corporation of India issued a telex/telegram on 13.10.1989, fixing the revised rates of rice. Copy of the same is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. As per this, the rice procured from the millers uptil 12.10.1989 was to remain same as was before 12.10.1989. The rice procured after 13.10.1989 was to have two different prices. The paddy which was procured upto 12.10.1989 and the rice shelled out of the same was to be procured at the old rates and the paddy purchased after 12.10.1989 was to carry different rates. The petitioner would term this to be an arbitrary and, thus, has challenged the same. It is pleaded that the rice, which is procured by the respondents, should carry the same price which is prevalent at the time of procurement of the rice and the respondents can not be allowed to make payment at two different rates, when the commodity is the same. Plea is that there can't be two different rates for the purchase of paddy and so there can not be two different rates for purchase of rice by the respondents.;