ARVAPALLI BALAKRISHNAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and to forward the petitioners application for registration as a stock holder at Khammameth, to the Iron and Steel Controller, Calcutta.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are briefly these: The petitioner is a partner of a firm doing business at Khammameth under the name and style "of Arvapalli Balakrish-niah and Ega. Ramulu, Kammameth. The firm deals and; has been dealing for a number of years is various, categories of Iron and Steel commodities. On 30-12-1960 the second respondent (the Director of Controlled Commodities, Andhra Pradesh) issued a notification, calling for applications for appointment as Registered Stock-holders of from and Steel for sale at several places in the State including, Khammameth. The notification was published in the newspapers. It reads as follows. "GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. Applications are invited from businessmen and firms of sound financial status, preferably from these hiving some experience in Iron and Steel trader and with a solvency of Rs. Two Lakhs for appointment of Registered Stockists and Controlled serap stockists at the following places: -

(3.) In conformity with the above notification, the petitioner-firm made an application on 7-1-1961 in the prescribed form and within the time specified for appointment as a Registered Stock-holder at Khammameth. Along with the petitioner, some other persons had also applied for being appointed as Registered Stock-holders of iron and steel at Khammameth. It is alleged in the present petition that, though the Collector of the District and the second respondent (the Director of Controlled Commodities, Andhra Pradesh) had recommended the case of the petitioner-firm for appointment, the State Government (first respondent) had recommended Sri Venkateswara Iron and Steel Syndicate, Khammameth (3rd respondent) for appointment as Registered Stock-holder, and have forwarded to the Iron and Steel Controller, Calcutta only the application of the said Syndicate, and had declined to forward the petitioner-firms application to the Iron and Steel Controller. It is alleged that the power to register Stock-holders in respect of sale of iron and steel under the terms of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956 vests solely in the Iron and Steel Controller and that, even though, the State Government may make recommendations as regards the merits of the other applicants, it has no right to withhold any of the applications from being forwarded to the appointing authority for final consideration. It is further alleged that Sri Venkateswara Iron and Steel Syndicate was formed for the first time after the notification was issued on 30-12-1960 and that, it does not otherwise also satisfy all the qualifications and requirements laid down in the notification calling for applications. Upon that premises. the petitioner prays for the issue by this Court of a writ of Mandamus, directing the State Government to forward its application to the Iron and Steel Controller, Calcutta. On behalf of the State Government, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the Assistant Secretary in the Industries and Commerce Department, stating inter alia that the second respondent had called for the applications by notification dated 30-12-1960 to give facilities to the dealers in the State to get themselves appointed as Registered Stock-holders, that the action taken by the respondents in respect of the applications is outside the purview of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956, and that there is no legal obligation on their part to obtain applications and merely forward them to the Iron and Steel Controller, Calcutta. It is, therefore, alleged that neither the State Government nor the second respondent can be compelled by the issuance of a writ of Mandamus by this Court to do something which, under the terms of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956 or any other statute or enactment, they are not bound to do.