BHOWRILAL MEHESRI AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs to an action for recovery of a certain sum of money. The facts in brief are that the plaintiffs as partners of a registered firm known as Hariram Mohanlal at Bongaigaon in the district of Goalpara, Assam were appointed wholesale dealers under the Foodstuffs (Foodgrains) Control Order, 1951 and as such were given licence in the form attached to the Appendix of the said Control Order. On receipt of a telegram confirmed by a sub -sequent letter from the Deputy Director of Procurement, Dhubri, on 23 -10 -1951, asking the plaintiffs to lift 500 maunds of milo by 24 -10 -1951, from the Government godown at Dhubri, paying price at Rs. 16 -13 -0 per maund for sale to retailers at Rs. 17 -5 -0 plus Re. 1/ - per maund as carriage charge, the plaintiffs in obedience to the direction, deposited in the Dhubri treasury Rs. 8,405 -4 -0 under two challans, dated 25 -10 -1951 and 27 -10 -1951 respectively, and took delivery of 500 maunds of milo and carried the same to their Bongaigaon godown spending Rs. 500/ - as transport charges.

(2.) THE defence was that the plaintiffs were under no obligation to purchase the 500 maunds of milo and when they did, they undertook all the risks, of business with full knowledge of the market and -there was no stipulation with the defendant to refund the price of the milo, in case the plaintiffs failed to sell the same. The plaintiffs were given all opportunities to sell all the milo to different P. T. Cs. later on within the State of Assam, and if the plaintiffs failed to dispose of the same, it was due to their fault.

(3.) ALL the facts necessary to be proved in this case have been proved and the findings are all in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have lost, however, on the ground that the contract between the plaintiffs and the State of Assam was not in accordance with the provisions of Section 175(3) of the; Government of India Act, 1935, and Article 299 of the present Constitution, and also because the licence or permit given to the plaintiffs under the provisions of the Assam Controlled Commodities Distribution Order, 1950, was not filed or proved.