JAI SANTOSHI BHANDAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The true nature and scope of Clause 5(1) of the Bihar Rice and Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order, 1983, with particular reference to its application to licensed wholesale dealers in paddy is the significant common question in this set of eleven Civil Writ Jurisdiction Cases. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the primal question of law being identical, this judgment will govern all of them.

(2.) Since the issue herein is primarily one of the construction of Clause 5(1) aforesaid, the circumstances giving rise thereto pale into relative insignificance. Nevertheless, the terra-firma of facts may be briefly taken from Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 204 of 1984 Jai Santoshi Bhandar v. The State of Bihar and Ors. The petitioner firm holds a wholesale dealer's licence under the provisions of the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1967, and it is averred that it purchases paddy from the cultivators and sells the entire stock thereof to various rice millers within the State of Bihar. Specific case pleaded is that the petitioner firm itself does not convert the paddy purchased by it into rice. The State Government in supersession of the earlier Bihar Rice and Paddy Procurement Order, 1982, have now promulgated and enforced the Bihar Rice and Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order, 1983 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Levy Order') with effect from the 24th of November, 1983. Clauses 3 and 4 of the Levy Order impose a levy on the stock and purchases of rice of licensed millers and licensed wholesale dealers respectively. However, Clause 5(1) is a composite one contemplating a levy on paddy on licensed millers and licensed wholesale dealers. The case set up on behalf of the writ petitioner is that the said Clause 5(1) only imposes the levy on paddy from the licensed wholesale dealers on stocks remaining unconverted into rice within three months or such extension of time as may be given by the Collector. Therefore, it is claimed that no levy can be imposed on the opening stock of paddy on the 24th of November, 1983 and the subsequent acquisition of stocks of the same. On this premise, it is stated that the petitioner had an opening stock of 57 quintals and 32 kilograms of paddy on the 24th of November, 1983 and it had purchased 2156 quintals and 53 kilograms of paddy out of which 1885 quintals arid 500 kilograms of paddy have already been sold and despatched to the rice millers of the State by the 2nd of January, 1984. However, the respondent Additional District Magistrate (Supply), by his memo No. 1448 dated the 23rd of December, 1983, had demanded the delivery of 25 per cent of the stock of paddy held by the petitioner on the 24th of November, 1983 as also a further 25 per cent of all subsequent purchases at the procurement price. Consequently a demand to deliver 482 quintals and 53 kilograms as a levy has been made against the petitioner, and it has been directed that until the said quantity is delivered to the State Food Corporation, no release order will be issued to the petitioner firm. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petitions have been preferred claiming that under Clause 5 the licensed wholesale dealers are liable to pay levy on the stock pf paddy only if the same is not converted into rice within three months and not otherwise. Therefore, it is prayed that the demand of levy be quashed as unauthorised by Clause 5 of the Levy Order.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents, the broad factual position is not disputed It is admitted that the writ petitioners are licensed wholesale dealers in paddy. However, the firm stand taken is that under Clause 5 of the Levy Order the licensed wholesale dealers are liable to a levy of 25 per cent on the opening stock held on the 24th of November, 1983 and further a levy of 25 per cent on all stocks of paddy received or purchased by the petitioners, thereafter. The categoric stand is that the latter part of Clause 5(1) with regard to paddy stocks remaining unconverted into rice within three months or such extended time thereafter is applicable only to licensed millers and has no relevance whatsoever to licensed wholesale dealers who do not convert paddy into rice at all. It is reiterated categorically that the very question of conversion of paddy into rice does not arise at all in the case of licensed wholesale dealers whose business is simply to purchase, store and sell the stocks of paddy. The demand of levy on the writ petitioners is, therefore, sought to be supported as valid and unexceptional.