DAVANAGARE SUGAR COMPANY LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) all these matters can be dealt with under a common judgment.

(2.) the facts which are not in controversymay be stated as under: sugar has been declared as an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1967. The union government has been regulating the production and distribution of sugar. During the year 1974-75 the union government was pursuing a policy popularly known as partial control under which part of the .sugar produced by the manufacturers of sugar was required to be sold to the union government the price was to be determined by the union government in accordance with the principles enumerated in Section 3(3) (c) of the Essential Commodities Act. When the price control orders were challenged by the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 3636 of 1975, interim stay was ordered permitting the petitioner-company to collect a price which was higher than the price determined under the levy sugar price fixation order. The writ petition came to be heard along with many other writ petitions filed by the other producers of sugar in the state of karnataka. The learned single judge allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned notifications. Against the said Order, the union government preferred appeals. The division bench allowed the appeals preferred by the union government. Thereafter, the matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. The matter is stated to be pending in the Supreme Court. The petitioners were called upon by a notice dated 23rd December 1980 to credit the excess realisation, i.e., the realisation over and above the price fixed by the union government under the price determination order. The validity of this order had come to be upheld as stated above by the division bench of this court. Similar demand notices came to be questioned in w.ps. Nos. 13007 and 13008 of 1978. The petitioner-company pointed out in reply to these notices that so long as the appeals are pending before the Supreme Court, there will-be no liability on the part of the petitioner-company. But this stand was rejected. Thereafter a notice was issued by the deputy commissioner, food and civil supplies department, chitradurga district, chitradurga, on 29-7-1981 calling upon the petitioner company to credit the excess realisation to the levy sugar price equalisation fund within seven days of the issue of the notice. The notice also held out a threat that the same will be recovered in accordance with Section 11 of the levy sugar price equalisation fund Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the act) read with Section 158 of the Karnataka land revenue Act, 1964. It is under these circumstances the present writ petitions had come to be filed.

(3.) mr. G.V. Shantaraju, learned counsel for the petitioners, does not question the constitutional validity of the act because this act has been included under the nineth schedule to the constitution. However, he makes the following submissions. The consumer is not the owner of the excess money. It should be considered as a bona vacantia in which event resort must be had to article 296 of the constitution. If that be the legal position, the state legislature can alone ask for refund and the union government cannot demand the refund of the excess realisation. The union government was a party to the writ petitions and order of stay was passed pending writ petitions. In so far as there is no specific direction vacating the stay, the liability cannot arise. Lastly it is urged that in calling upon the petitioners to pay, it would amount to interference with the judiciary which is not permissible in law. In support of this, reliance is placed on the decision in m.m. pathak v union of India (a.i.r. 1978 S.C. 803). These are the only points urged before us.