FIRM RAM KRIPAL SRICHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Ram Kripal Srichand have filed this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has made the following prayer in the writ petition. "it is, therefore, prayed that the entire record pertaining to the dispute may kindly be called from the respondents and the writ petition be allowed and; (i) a writ of certiorari or prohibition or any other writ, order or direction may kindly be ordered to be issued against the respondents quashing the part of the order dated 23. 10. 1980 by which he held the petitioner liable to delivery of 65. / of sugar out of the stock of 135 bags of sugar despatched to the petitioner on 17. 12. 1979, by way of levy under the Sugar Retention Order and prohibit the respondents from so taking delivery of the 88 bags of sugar or any part thereof from the petitioner and a specific direction be given to respondents to release the same to your humble petitioner. (ii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction be given to all or any of the respondents as may be just and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case granting suitable relief to the petitioner. (iii) An ad-interim order be issued against the respondents to immediately release the aforesaid 88 quintals (88 bags of sugar) to your humble petitioner. (iv) Costs of the writ petition be awarded to the petitioner. "

(2.) ON 23. 10. 1980, the respondents ordered that 65 percent of sugar out of the stock of 135 bags of sugar despatched to the petitioner on 17-12-79 should be taken as levy under the Sugar (Retention and Sale by Recognised Dealers ) Order, 1979, and directed the petitioners to give delivery of 88 bags of sugar.

(3.) THE crucial controversy, however, is that the case of the petitioner is that invoice and Hundi were prepared on 17. 12. 79 and actual despatch by the railway was made on 17. 12. 79, and even the wagons in which the sugar was loaded were made available on 17. 12. 79, and the R. R. is also of 17. 12. 79. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Agrawal submits that it cannot be held that these sugar stocks were either delivered or despatched to a recognised dealer by a purchaser of sugar or any other recognised dealer prior to 17. 12. 79, the date or day on which this order commenced.