SHIVASHANKAR DOKANIA Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The hearing in this case was concluded on 8.4.1971. On the conclusion of the arguments learned counsel for the petitioners indicated that he was willing to withdraw those writ applications, provided the impugned notices requiring the petitioners to sell rice on the basis of the alleged agreements executed under Clause 13 of the Bihar Essential Food -grains Procurement Order, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Procurement Order 1969) were withdrawn; and further the respondents undertook not to take action on the basis of the alleged breach of the agreement. In view of our observations made in the course of argument on the merit of the case it appeared to us that the offer of the petitioners was fair. At the request of the counsel for the parties we did not deliver the judgment on the conclusion of hearing as the Standing Counsel No. 2, who appeared along with the Advocate General and was incharge of the case, wanted time to take instructions before making any commitments on behalf of the respondents. No information was given to us till the court closed for summer vacation. After the reopening we enquired whether the learned counsel has been able to obtain instructions. Since no instruction had been received by him we thought it proper to defer the delivery of judgment for sometime more. Finally we were informed by the learned Standing Counsel No. 2 that he was not in a position to state anything on behalf of the respondents. We are, therefore, delivering this judgment after some delay which was on account of the circumstances already mentioned. The petitioners in all these cases challenge the Procurement Order and certain actions taken pursuant thereto. It will be sufficient to give some broad facts only which are common to all the writ applications. But before giving those essential facts it may be necessary to give some details regarding the Procurement Order.

(2.) A notification dated 10.10.1969 was issued promulgating the Procurement Order. The most important provision which has to be directly dealt with in these cases is Clause 13. The effect of this clause is that every rice miller including the owner of a single huller rice mill had to sell to the State Government or Food Corporation of India rice of common variety equal in weight to a specified percentage of all varieties produced or manufactured in the rice mill on its own account. Clause 14 authorised the seizure of stocks in case of failure of rice millers to sell in accordance with the requirement of Clause 13. The relevant portion of Clause 13 may be quoted;

(3.) In pursuance of the proviso quoted above notification was issued on the 30th September, 1969 which is quoted in extenso in Paragraph 16 of C.W.J.C. 1439 of 1970. This notification authorised the Collectors of the districts to fix the quantity of rice to be sold by rice mills in lieu of levy on percentage basis. It also laid down the terms, conditions and the guidelines which had to be adopted by the Collectors. It is not in dispute that in all these writ applications the petitioners entered into agreements to sell to the State Government or its duly empowered officers or the representative of the Food Corporation of India quantities specified in the respective agreements. A copy of one of the agreements is Annexure 2 to C.W.J.C. 1439 of 1970. What, however, is disputed is as to whether they entered into the agreements Voluntarily, a question which need not be decided. It appears that there was default by the petitioners in carrying out the terms of the agreement. The authorities, therefore, took action under Clause 14 of the Procurement Order by seizing the stock and directing the petitioner to show cause by different notices as to why they should not be prosecuted under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955. Various other facts and submissions of law are mentioned in the writ applications. But it is not necessary to state those for the purpose of the disposal of these writ applications.