Y ESWARIAH CHOUDRY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these several applications for the issue of writs under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioners seek a declaration that clause 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Paddy and Rice (Requisitioning of Stocks) Order is void and inoperative. Though the petitioners originally sought a declaration that clauses 3, 4 (1), 4 (2) and 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) and Restriction on sale order were also void, the petitioners counsel confined his argument to clause 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Paddy and Rice (Requisitioning of Stock) Order, 1966.

(2.) The petitioners are rice millers of Kurnool town who purchase paddy, mill the same and sell rice after milling. Under the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) and Restriction of Sale Order, 1967 they are obliged to sell to the agent (Food Corporation of India) such percentage of the total quantity of rice milled by them as specified in the schedule. Prior to 1-11-1972 the schedule specified 50 percent. The Millers are obliged to sell the specified quantity of rice at the notified price which is defined as the price fixed under the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Ex-mill Prices) Order, 1972. Under that order the price of the variety of rice with which we are concerned has been fixed at Rs. 97-10 per quintal. Though the petitioners were obliged to sell 50 percent of the rice milled by them under the Rice Procurement (Levy) and Restriction on Sale Order they claim that there was an agreement with the Collector that each miller should sell 270 quintals of rice for the period prior to 1-11-1972. They also claim that there was a tentative agreement that all the millers of Kurnool district should together sell 270 tonnes of rice for the period subsequent to 1-11-1972. The petitioners allege that notwithstanding these agreements notices were served on all of them to sell 25 percent of the rice milled by them prior to 1-11-1972 and 50 percent of the rice milled by them after 1-11-1972. They sent suitable replies putting forward the agreements alleged by them. We are not now concerned in these writ petitions with the truth or the validity of these alleged agreements. On 1-3-1973 the Revenue Divisional Officer , Kurnool issued notices to all the petitioners proposing to requisition their entire stocks of paddy and rice leaving a quantity of 25 quintals of rice with each of them. Thereupon the petitioners filed the present applications for the issue of writs under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) The first submission of Sri P. Krishna Reddy , learned counsel for the petitioners was that clause 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Paddy and Rice (Requisitioning of Stocks) Order gave unbridled power to the authorities to requisition stocks of paddy and rice without prescribing any guidelines for the exercise of that power. Sri Krishna Reddy also urged that power was given not merely to highly placed officials like the Commissioner and the Collector but also to officials in the lower ranks such as the Deputy Tahsildar and Grain Purchase Assistant. It is true that clause 3 itself does not mention the principles which are to guide the exercise of power under clause 3. That is because these principles are already mentioned in the Essential Commodities Act under which the Paddy and Rice (Requisitioning of Stocks) Order is made. In State of Rajasthan v. Nathmal, AIR 1954 SC 307 dealing with argument that the power given to the Enforcement Officer to seize any stocks of foodgrain held by any person under an order issued by the Rajasthan Government was void as it conferred an arbitrary power , their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed :