VIJAYALAKSHMI RICE MILLS NEW CONTRACTORS CO JAYALAKSHMI RICE AND OIL MILLS CONTRACTORS CO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS batch of Appeals Nos. 805, 806 and 972 to 977 of 1973 by certificate from the judgments and decrees of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Appeals Nos. 766 of 1968, 18 of 1969, 779 of 1968, 780 of 1968, 782 of 1968, 783 of 1971, 784 of 1968 and 785 of 1968 raise a simple but an interesting question namely, whether for the supplies of rice made by the appellants in January and February, 1964, they are to be paid price according to the rate specified in the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control (Third Amendment) Order, 1964 dated 23/03/1964 or according to the rate specified in the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control Order as it stood in 1963. The question arise in the following circumstances:

(2.) THE appellants are millers and carry on the business of paddy and rice in the State of Andhra Pradesh. On 31/07/1959 the Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Central Act X of 1955) hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' made an order called the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1959. Clause 3 of the order required every dealer and every miller to sell to the State Government on requisition served on him by the requisitioning authority at the controlled price (a) 40 per cent of the quantity of rice held in stock by him at the commencement of the order, and (b) 40 per cent of the total quantity of rice purchased by him every day beginning with the commencement of the order. Clause 2(a) of the order defined "controlled price" as meaning the maximum price fixed under S. 3 of the Act for the sale of rice by the Central Government from time to time (Emphasis supplied). On 19/12/1963, the Central Government in exercise of the power conferred on it by Section 3 of the Act made an order called the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control Order, 1963, which extended to the districts of Krishna, West Godavari, East Godavari, Guntur, Nizamabad, Warangal and Nellore in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Clause 2 of the order provided that the maximum prices at which the varieties of rice specified in column (1) of the Schedule to that Order were to be sold in wholesale quantities would be as specified in the corresponding entries in column (2) of the said Schedule. THE said Schedule inter alia provided that Akkulu rice would be sold at Rs. 46.89 per quintal. In compliance with the requisitions served on them by the requisitioning authority of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the appellants sold various quantities of that variety of rice to the Government of that State from 26/01/1964, to 21/02/1964, and were paid at the aforesaid rate of Rs. 46.89 per quintal. By means of the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control (Second Amendment) Order, 1964, dated 20/03/1964, the Central Government amended sub-clause (1) of clause 2 of the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control Order, 1963 and ordained that in the said sub-clause for the words "the Schedule", the words and figures Schedule I shall be substituted. On 23/03/1964, the Central Government issued the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control (Third Amendment) Order, 1964, Clause 2 of the Order ran thus :-

(3.) MR. Nariman appearing on behalf of the appellants has laid great emphasis on the word "substituted" occurring in clause 2 of the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control (Third Amendment) Order, 1964, and has urged that the claim of the appellants cannot be validly ignored. Elaborating his submission, counsel has contended that as the prices fixed by the Government are meant for the entire season, the appellants have to be paid at the controlled price as fixed regardless of the dates on which the supplies were made. We cannot accede to this contention. It is no doubt true that the literal meaning of the word "substitute" is 'to replace' but the question before us is from which date the substitution or replacement of the new Schedule took effect. There is no deeming clause or some such provision in the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control (Third Amendment) Order, 1964, to indicate that it was intended to have a retrospective effect. It is a well recognized rule of interpretation that in the absence of express words or appropriate language from which retrospectivity may be inferred, a notification takes effect from the date it is issued and not from any prior date. The principle is also well settled that statutes should not be construed so as to create new disabilities or obligations or impose new duties in respect of transactions which were complete at the time the Amending Act came into force..