PRICON PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The petitioner is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of manufacturing cement pipes at Ankleshwar. Cement is, therefore, one of the raw materials required by the petitioner Company. The petition was filed in 1982 challenging the inaction on the part of respondent No. 3 in not supplying cement to the petitioner under instructions of respondent No. 2.

(2.) . The distribution and sale, levy cement and the price for its sale were governed by Cement Control Order, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Control Order) and the directions issued by the authorities under the said Control Order. As per the procedure then followed, respondent No. 2 - Regional Cement Controller for the State of Gujarat, had issued order dated 20-2-1982 in favour of the petitioner company requiring respondent No. 3 - M/s. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. manufacturing cement - to supply 114 tonnes of cement to the petitioner at the specified rate of Rs. 630.00 per tonne. On the basis of the said order dated 20-2-1982 (Annexure A) respondent No. 3 company issued release order dated 20-2-1982 in favour of the petitioner requiring the petitioner to make payment for the aforesaid quantity of the cement at the aforesaid specified rate. Accordingly the petitioner made part-payment by Demand Draft of Rs. 43,000.00 in favour of respondent No. 3 company and forwarded the same on 1-3-1982. However, thereafter respondent No. 3 sent letter dated 16-3-1982 to the petitioner informing that on account of the partial decontrol of cement it received instructions not to arrange despatches to the petitioner and that respondent No. 3 was awaiting final instructions from respondent No. 2 in that behalf. Copy of the said letter is produced at Annexure E to the petition.

(3.) . The present petition was filed in March 1982 praying for directions to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to supply to the petitioner cement as per the aforesaid authorisation dated 20-2-1982 and release order dated 25-2-1982 at Annexures A and B respectively. The petitioner had also prayed for mandatory interim relief in the same terms but no such interim relief was granted when Rule was issued on 10- 8-1982.