K.E. UMMAL BAJIRIA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MADRAS REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF THANJAVUR DT. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions were preferred by the producers of paddy in Thanjavur Dt. for the issue of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to follow, in the matter of procuring paddy from the petitioners, the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act (Central Act X of 1955) and in particular, S. 3 -B of the said Act, and the Madras Paddy and Rice (Declaration and Requisitioning of Stock) Order, 1967. The Madras Paddy and Rice (Declaration and Requisitioning of Stocks) Order, 1967, provides for the declaration and requisition of stocks of paddy and rice in order to secure their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices. Rule 4 empowers the officers mentioned the rein in writing to require a person holding stocks of paddy or rice or both within the jurisdiction of that officer to sell the stocks after providing for his reasonable requirements or a specified part of the stocks accordance with directions issued by the Government from time to time, to the Government or 10 an officer or agent of the Government. Sub -R. (3) of R. 4 provides that every order of requisition shall specify the price payable for any paddy or rice requisitioned and such price shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (Central Act X of 1955). S. 3 -B of the Essential Commodities Act (Central Act X of 1955) prescribes the procedure by which the price should be fixed. The person from whom paddy or rice has been requisitioned shall be paid such price as may be specified in the order having regard to (1) the controlled price, if any, fixed under S. 3 -B or by or under any other law for the time being in force, for such grade or variety of foodgrains, (2) the price for such grade or variety of foodgrains prevailing or likely to prevail during the postharvest period in the area to which that order applies. S. 3 -B. thus requires the authority fixing the price to take into account the controlled price and the price that was likely to prevail during the post -harvest period in the area to which the requisitioning order applies. It is common ground that the price as required under the Essential Commodities Act (Central Act X of 1955) payable to a person from whom any stock of paddy or rice is requisitioned has not been fixed. Without such fixation of price the authorities cannot require a person holding any stock of paddy or rice to sell the stock to the Government. In these cases the contention of the petitioners is that without fixing the price of paddy as required under the Essential Commodities Act the Government are procuring paddy at Rs. 48, Rs. 45, and Rs. 43 for the first, second and third varieties respectively and are compelling the producers to sell their paddy at those rates. These prices are stated to have been determined under the Madras Paddy (Maximum Prices) Order, 1966. Whether any price had been fixed under the Madras Paddy (Maximum Prices) Order 1966 is not relevant, as the price that is payable to a person from whom paddy has been requisitioned under the Act is the one that is provided for under S. 3 -B of the Essential Commodities Act (Central Act X of 1955).

(2.) The petitioners have averred that through its local officials the State of Madras are compelling the producers is their district to sell their paddy at the abovementioned rate. The petitioners have also referred to various regulations and have alleged that they are compelled to part with their paddy only to the procuring agents at prices quoted by them, which are cot in accordance with S. 3 -B of Essential Commodities Act. It is also alleged that the Government after arming themselves fully with all the powers of procuring paddy do not want to pay the producers the prices to which they are entitled to under the Essential Commodities Act and that the conduct of the respondents is in direct and flagrant violation of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. It is also alleged that, thought this court has pointed out in several writ petitions that the Government are bound to pay the prices as provided in the Essential Commodities Act, there is no intention on the part of the State of Madras, to obey the statutory provisions and pay the market price.

(3.) In the counter affidavit the District Supply Officer stated that had the Government requisitioned paddy under the Madras Paddy and Rice (Declaration and Requisitioning of stock) Order 1967 and fixed the price payable therefor as laid down under that order, the landholder would not be eligible to get any higher price than the maximum notified price. This statement is seriously disputed by the petitioners. That the price if fixed would have been lower is no answer to the submission of the petitioners that the Government bad failed to fix the price of paddy as required under the Essential Commodities Act. The plea of the District Supply officer in paragraph 3 of his counter affidavit that the quantities of paddy were voluntarily delivered to the Government by the producers cannot stand scrutiny. The contention of the petitioners is that they are not paid a proper price and that they are compelled to part with their paddy. It is rather difficult to follow the reasoning in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, which is as follows: