FIRM UDAIRAJ BANKATLAL Vs. COMMISSIONER CIVIL SUPPLIES RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by Firm Udairaj Bankatlal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction, order, or writ in the nature of 'mandamus', prohibition, 'quo warranto', and 'certiorari', or any of them, to be issued against the State of Rajasthan and certain officers of the State, who have been made parties to the application.

(2.) The facts, which have led to this application are these. The petitioner is a merchant at Parbatsar, and deals in foodgrains, for which it holds a licence. 103 bags of barley, which were lying in the petitioner's godown in Basroli, were freezed in March 1949, under the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Civil Supplies, Jodhpur. This happened before the United State of Rajasthan was formed. The grain remained freezed for some time, while the petitioner made representations to Government. Eventually the petitioner was asked to sell the grain at Rs. 9/- per 'maund' on the 3rd of January, 1951. The petitioner seems to have asked for time to make representations. Eventually the present application was filed on the 28th of February 1951, as the petitioner apparently failed in his representations to Government.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that barley was being allowed to be sold freely in the market, and no ceiling prices had been fixed by Government. The petitioner had purchased its stock at market rates on about Rs. 17/- or 18/-per 'maund', and held it in the usual course of business. No reasons had been assigned why the stock of the petitioner had been freezed and requisitioned at procurement rate, and no principles had been laid down in the Rajasthan Foodgrains Control Order, 1949, for freezing and requisitioning of the stocks of foodgrains with any dealer. It was contended that the Civil Supplies authorities had no authority to freeze and requisition the stock of barley with the petitioner arbitrarily without assigning any reason and that, in any case, if they had any such discretion, it had been highly abused so as to discriminate between one person and another. Reliance was placed on Articles 14, 19 (1) (f), 19 (1) (g), and 31 of the Constitution, read with Article 13, in this connection, and it was urged that law under which the action was taken was void and 'ultra vires.'