REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

A.Z.MOHAMMED FAROOQ Appellant

V/S

STATE GOVERNMENT Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

LVELL V. KENNADY [REFERRED TO]
BROOME V. PARDCSS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY [REFERRED TO]
KALANDER V. KUNHIPAKKI [REFERRED TO]
BRIDGE V. CAMPBELL DISCOUNT CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
PHIPPS V. BOARDMAN [REFERRED TO]
CHELL ENGINEERING V. UNIT TOOL & ENG. CO. [REFERRED TO]
MALLAYYA V. JAGANNADHAMMA [REFERRED TO]
AYISH BI BI V. MOHD. SUDAKTAHULLA [REFERRED TO]
BOARDMAN V. PHIPPS [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDAN & CO. V. SALES-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [REFERRED TO]
P. KANNAYYA CHETTI V. R. VENKATA NARASAWA [REFERRED TO]
AHAD MIR V. MAHDA BHAT [REFERRED TO]
LAXIMDAS DAYAHUAL KABRAWALA VS. NANABHAI CHUNILNL AABRAWALA [REFERRED TO]
A VENKATA SUBBARAO THE FIRM OF PERUMBALLA SUBBARAO AND VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
T D GOPALAN VS. COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SINGH JAGGI VS. DATA RAM JAGANNATH [REFERRED TO]
K NATESA AYYAR VS. KOTHANDARAMA AYYAR [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDJI JEVAT AND CO VS. CANNANORE SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LTD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. B NESAN [REFERRED TO]
A P VELAYUDHAN NAIR VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
PAMBAN KAYAKKAL VALSALAN VS. PAMBAN KAYAKKAL KAUMUDI [REFERRED TO]
MUNSHI RAM VS. RADHA KISHAN [REFERRED TO]
BAI SHEVANTIBAI VS. JANARDHAN RAGHUNATH WARICK [REFERRED TO]
(MIAN) PIR BUX VS. MOHOMED TAHAR [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whenever scarcity in food is felt, the State steps in with remedial measures, to ensure the availability and an equitable distribution of the food-stuffs. Special Legislation -- some ephemeral and some almost having a 'quasi permanency' -- is also resorted to, to meet such emergent situations. Control Orders of various types, to cover procurement, movement, processing, price fixation and distribution, are issued on those occasions. There has been a spate of litigation in the State arising out of the implementation and the working of these Control Orders. This appeal arises from one among them.

(2.) Palghat District which enjoys the reputation as the granary of the State, has numerous rice mills with their sprawling yards humming with activities. The procurement of paddy, and conversion of it into rice, are transacted on an extensive scale in that area. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted in one such area in that District Perintalmanna.

(3.) Clause 3 of the Rice and Paddy (Procurement by Levy) Order casts an obligation on every cultivator to sell to the Government or an agent of the Government or other authorised person, paddy derived from the cultivated lands subject to the various conditions referred to in the Order. Under Clause 7, the payment of price is to be effected by the Government or agent or the authorised person purchasing the Daddy. Under the Paddy and Rice (Declaration and Requisitioning of Stocks) Order, any stockholder can be directed by the specified authorities to convert into rice, the paddy in the possession or control of such stockholder. Every stockholder is obliged to sell to the Government or the agent or other persons named in that behalf at the controlled price such quantity of paddy or rice in his possession as specified in the Order.

Click here to view full judgment.

A Z MOHAMMED FAROOQ Vs. STATE GOVERNMENT

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address