STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. MUBARAK RICE MILL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant, State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Collector, Guntur, is the appellant. The suit is filed, for recovery of Rs. 41, 320/ being the principal and interest due on account of principal amounts collected by the defendant from the plaintiff on different dates during the years 1969 and 70 towards administrative charges. The plaintiff is a dealer in food-grains at Chandole and during 1968-69 and 70 food grain dealers had to obtain permits for exporting rice under clause 3 of Andhra Pradesh Rice, and Paddy (R&M) Order, 1965 from the Collector, Guntur for which no payment of any amount is necessary. But the defendant levied and collected from the plaintiff amounts totalling Rs. 36, 850/for the permits issued and the said amounts were paid by the plaintiff by challans through State Bank of India. The collection of the said amounts is illegal and without legislative lanction and the amounts were paid under the mistaken impression that such levy and collection is statutory. The plaintiff paid aforesaid amounts without free consent and under coercion by the defendant because the plaintiff is anxious to avoid further losses in selling rice to Food Corporation of India. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WP. 3974/71 and other 62 writ petititions by order dated 27-3-72 held that such collection of the amounts as administrative charges was illegal. The defendant filed a written sratement stating that the suit is barred by limitation even as per the allegations in the plaint and Sec. 80 CPC notice dated 30-7-72. The administrative surcharge amounts were paid by the plaintiff voluntarily to the Government and the plaintiff also collected amounts from his predecessors and as such he is not entitled to ask for refund of the amount. The demand for interest is not legal and just. Permits were issued by the Government on the basis of the representations made by the millers themselves and on their applications and in issuing permits State Government machinery was involved at all levels to supervise the transactions of purchase, sale and transport and it involved huge expenditure to the State. The plaintiff and other millers voluntarily agreed to pay the surcharge and they derived benefit thereunder. They have taken the permits and earned huge profits and it is not open to the Plaintiff to ask for refund of the amounts paid by him. The High Court of A.P. in judgment dated 27-3-72 referred to in the plaint observed that the system of collection of administrative surcharge has been in vague since 1968 and that the rice millers are voluntarily paying the amounts. The plaintiff is estopped from contending that the amounts Were paid by mistake or coercion and from claiming refund of the amounts having made the Govt. incur administrative expenditure and obtained permits and made huge profits. The plaintiff acquiesced in the collection of the amounts and did not question till 13-7-72. The defendant is not liable to pay interest by way of damages. The suit is barred as the claim was not put forward within one year from the date of the credit of the administrative charges to the Government. It is also stated that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit as the allegation that the administrative charges were wrongfully collected at Bapatla are false.

(2.) On the basis of the pleadings set out above the necessary isiues have been framed. The court below held that the suit is not barred by limitation as the suit is filled within three years from the date of the judgment of the High Court i.e. 27-3-72. It is also further held that the plaintiff is not entitled to any interest for the amount and the court at Bapatla has jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the fact that the mill is situated at Chandole which reforms the basis of the litigation and wherefrom the applications emanated and the exports are made.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader contended that the Government is entitled to collect administrative charges as the issue of permits and the vigilence over the purchase, delivery and tronsport of the goods involved huge expenditure and in view of the voluntary payment the plaintiff is estopped from demanding refund of the amount. It is further contended that the suit is barred by limitation and the Co urt at Bapatla has no jurisdiction as no part of the cause of action arose within thejurisdiction of Bapatla Court.