ESWARAIAH CHOUDARY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these several applications for the issue of writs under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek a declaration on that Clause 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Paddy and Rite (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 petitioner's counsel confined his argument to clause 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Pad Jy and Rice (Requisitioning of Stock ) Order, 1966.

(2.) The petitioners are rice millers of Kurnool town who purchase paddy, mill the same and sell the rice after milling Under the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) and Restriction on 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 these schedules. Prior to 1-11-1972 the Schedule specified 25% for rice millers in Kurnool District. After 1-11-1972 the Schedule specifies 50% The Millers are obliged to sell the specified quantity of rice at tae 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% of the rice milled by them under the Rice Procurement (Levy) and Restriction oa Sale Order they claim that there was an agreement with the Collector that each miller should sell 270 quintals of rice for the period piior to 1-11-1972. They also claim that there was a tentative agreement that all the millers of Kurnool 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 of them to sell 25% of the rice milled by them prior to 1-11-1972 and 50% ot the rice milled by them after 1-11-1972. They sent suitable replies putting forward the agreements alleged by them. We are 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. There upon the petitioners filed the present applications for the issue of writs under Article 226 of the Constitution. The first submission of Sri P. Krishna Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners was that clause 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Paddy and Rice (Requisiting of Stocks) Older gave unbridled power to the authorities to requisition stciks 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 in the lower ranks, such as the Deputy Tahsiidar 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 those 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' dealing with argument that the power given to the Enforcement Officer to seize any stocks of foodgrains 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:

(3.) I may further add that in the very nature of things the discretion given to the authorities has necessarily to be wide. It is a matter of common knowledge that the food shation in our country is precarious, because the production of food is marginal in relation to the requirements of our growing population and the rising standards of living. The balance, may be upset by the slightest disturbance such as food, fire, cyclone, drought or public disorder in addition to the usual practices of hoarding and blackmarketting indulged in by unsocial elements. Ordinarily the paddy and rice procured under the Paddy Procurement (Levy) Older and the Rice Procurement (Levy) and Restriction on Sale Order may be quite sufficient to secure the even distribution of rice at fair prices throuoguout the country. But an unforeseen emergency may arise at any time in any part of the country. It is essential that the authorities should be arned with necessary powers to deal with emergent situation arising out of any ot the many causes mentioned by me earlier. Since the causes are many and cannot be foreseen the discretion given to the authorities has necessarily to be wid. The discretion is of course to be exercised always for the purposes mentioned in the Eisential Commodities Act. Sri Krishna, Reddy urged that even assuming that it was necessary to confer wide discretion to the authorities, such discretion should have been entrusted to highly placed officials and not to officials in the lower ranks. He invited my attention to cases where the wide discretion given to certain licensing authorities was upheld by courts on the ground that the discretion was entrusted to highly placed officials. There is no axiomytic rule that discretion, if wide, should always be entrusted to highly placed officiats In the case of licensing' provisions, often very great monetary stakes are involved. Entrusting wide discretion in such cases to lower officials may have the result of leading to undesirable practices. In such cases, it may be desirable that the discretion is entrusted to highly placed officials. But we are concerned here with the food problem which touches every nock . and corner of the country and affects every one. Emergent situations may arise at any time in any nook and corner of the country. The officer on the spot must be entrusted with the power to deal with the situation immediately. Otherwise great mischief and havock may be done by the time the highly placed officials are appraised of the situation and take necessary action. Take the case of a sudden flood or fire which washes away or destroys a village in a remote corner of the State. The Deputy Tahasildar is the man on the spot. It is his duty to provide food and shelter immediately to those affected by the devastation He may provide food by requisitioning stocks of paddy and rice from a neighbouring village and making them available to those affected by the flood or fire, ff he is to wait for an appropriate order to be passed by The highly placed official at the capital of the State or even : the headquarters of the district grent hardship may be caused to the people affected by the devastation. In situations which can only be dealt with satisfactorily and according to need by lower officials, there is no charm in insisting upon higher officials dealing with such situations. I am, therefore of the view that clause 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Paddy and Rice (Requisitioning of Stocks) Order is not void either tor the reason that it confers unguided discretion to the authorities or for the reason that the discretion is not confined to the bigher echelons of power, Sri P. Krishna Reddy relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in State of Madras v. Sri Vanamamalai Mutti v here dealing with the power to. requisition paddy and rice undrr Clause 4 of the Madras Paddy and Rice (Declaration and Requisitioning of Stocks) Order Natesan J, relying on the obrervations in Yakus v. United States' 2 observed.