NISHA NATH DE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is directed against an Order, being Order No. 1 dated January 14, 1976, made in Misc. (Levy) Revision Case No. 18 of 1976. The petitioner at all material times possessed 6. 07 acres of agricultural lands. By an Order dated 1st December, 1975, under the provisions of West Bengal Foodgrains procurement (Levy) Order 1975, he was directed to deliver 137 quintals of Aman Paddy. Thereafter, without preferring the statutory appeal under the provisions of the said levy order, he filed a review petition against the levy Order as aforesaid, under paragraph 9 of the said Order, which is to the following effect: paragraph-9 : Review and revision by State Government and District Officer-The Government or the District Magistrate or the Deputy Commissioner of a district may call for and examine the records of any order passed by any subordinate authority under the provisions of this order for the purpose of satisfying itself and himself as to the legality or propriety of such order and may give such direction in reference thereto as the Government or the District Magistrate or the Deputy Commissioner may deem fit : provided that no direction to the disadvantage of a producer shall be given under this paragraph, unless the producer concerned has been accorded an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such order : provided further that for the purposes of this paragraph, the expression "district Magistrate" and the expression "deputy Commissioner" shall include such additional District Magistrate and Additional Deputy Commissioner other than the Additional District or Additional Deputy Commissioner authorised under sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 7, as may be authorised by the District Magistrate or Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, in this behalf. And prayed for appropriate deductions of his levy obligations.

(2.) THE Additional District Magistrate, Respondent No. 2, by the impugned order in Annexure 'b,' which as aforesaid is dated 14th January. 1976, directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the levy, in order to get the review petition admitted. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application stating that he has delivered 4 quintals of paddy and prayed for variation of the impugned Order dated 14th January, 1976 so far the same related to the deposit of 50% of the levy. It was contended by him that he was not in a position to deliver 50% of the assessed amount of 137 quintals of paddy, as the same exceeds the total yield of paddy upon 6-07 acres of lands which the petitioner was and is possessing. Such application of the petitioner, was rejected by the said Respondent No. 2, on 9th February, 1976.

(3.) IT has been contended by Mr. Roy, appearing in support of the Rule, that the quantum of levy as assessed was highly illegal and irregular and the same had no relation to the actual yield of 6. 07 acres of lands, which the petitioner is admittedly possessing. In that view of the matter, it was submitted by Mr. Roy that the impugned order in Annexure "b" should be quashed, as the same was made without application of mind and illegally.