NATHMAL Vs. COMMISSIONER CIVIL SUPPLIES RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by Nathmal and Mithalal under Art. 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 petitioners are merchants at Rani-wara, and deal in foodgrains for which they hold licences. On the 7th of October, 1960, the petitioners were informed by the Sub-Divisional Offi-cer, Bhinmal, that their stocks of 'bajra' were frozen by him under orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Civil Supplies, Jodhpur. Later, they were informed by the Tehsildar of Jaswantpura that their stocks of 'bajra' were requisitioned by the Government, and they were ordered to sell it at the rate of Rs. 9/- per 'maund'. The petitioners made various representations to the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner, Civil Supplies, and the Hon'ble Minister for Supplies but with no effect. Their contention is that 'bajra' is being allowed to be freely purchased and sold in the market, and no ceiling prices have been fixed by the Government. The stock of 'bajra' with the petitioners was purchased by them at prevailing market rates, namely, about Rs. 17/- to Rs. 18/-per 'maund', and was held by them in the usual course of business. No reasons had been assigned why the stocks of the petitioners had been frozen 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 stock of foodgrains with any dealer. Further, it was said that stock of certain other grain merchants had also been frozen, but an that stock had been released. The Civil Supplies authorities had no authority to freeze and requisition the stock of 'bajra' with the petitioners arbitrarily without assigning any reaso_n, and, in any case, if they had any such discretion, it had been highly abused so as to discriminate between one person and another. The action taken under the Foodgrains Control Order was void, in view of Articles 14, 19 (1) (f), 19 (1) (g), and 31 of the Constitution, read with Article 13.

(3.) The application was opposed by the State of Rajasthan. It was urged that separate orders were passed against Nathmal and Mithalal, and as such, a single petition was not maintainable. It was also urged that the application had not been filed on behalf of the respective firms, and that the affidavit had been verified by one of the applicants, viz., Nathmal, and not by the other, Mitha Lal. Further, the order freezing and requisitioning the stock of 'bajra' was justified under Clause 25 of the Rajasthan Foodgrains Control Order, 1949, and the payment of Rs. 9/- per 'maund' was justified under Clause 4 of the Rajasthan Foodgrains (Kharif) Procurement Order, 1949. This circumstances in which the 'bajra' was freezed were that the applicants had applied for permits to export this 'bajra' outside the district of Jalore. The matter was referred to the Commissioner, Civil Supplies, for instructions, as a large quantity of 'bajra' was intended to be sent out of the district. Thereupon the Government of Rajasthan ordered that the stock of 'bajra' of all merchants who applied for export permits should be freezed. The power was exercised under Clause 25 of the Rajasthan Foodgrains Control Order in order to prevent the creation of an unwarranted scarcity in Jalore. Compensation had been paid for the 'bajra' that had been requisitioned and, therefore, the applicants had no case.