AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Rajagopala Reddy, J.—The point that arises in this writ petition is whether the rice millers are liable to deliver the mill levy rice at any place the F.C.I. chooses.
The answer to this question depends upon the interpretation to be put to C1ause6 and Clause 8 (sic. Sub-clauses (1) and (8) of Clause 6) of the A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984, (hereinafter called ''Levy Order'').
Before answering the above question it is necessary to mention some relevant facts.
The petitioner is the Association of rice millers of Jangaon town in Warangal Dist. Its members are holders of licences, under A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers(Licensingand Distribution) Order, 1982. They are doing business in rice and boiled vice at Jangaon. They mill the paddy at Jangoan in the mill premises into rice and also prepare boiled rice in the rice mills. As per the Levy Order the millers have to sell the rice to the Food Corporation of India at the procurement price. They have been supplying the boiled rice as per the levy price since several years either in the mill premises or at the Central Ware-Housing Corporation Godown at Jangaon.
The respondent-Corporation, however, from 1994 onwards, has been insisting upon the rice millers to deliver the levy rice at Kazipet, a far flung town situated about 55 km., away from Jangaon. On the representation filed by the petitioner-Association the millers were ultimately allowed to supply at the godown at Jangaon. Even for the current rabi season the millers supplied the - rice at Jangaon, as evident from the letter of the Senior Regional Manager, dt. 3-4-96, addressed to the District Manager, F.C.I. Lately the respondent-Corporation is insisting upon the millers to transport the levy rice to Kazipet Railway Station at their own, meeting the freight charges and loading and unloading charges, to facilitate transportation to other States, stating that the transport charges incurred by them would be reimbursed at the rates fixed by the Government, subsequently. This action of the respondent-Corporation is challenged in this writ petition as. contrary to the provisions of the Levy Order.
The respondents filed counter-affidavit stating that as per the the Levy Order and other. G.Os., the millers are liable to deliver the levy rice to the Purchase Officer at any place the F.C.I. chooses, and hence they are bound to deliver the rice at Kazipet. The godowns at Jangaon were reserved by F.C.I to store levy raw rice to an extent of fifty thousand metric tonnes only and any .boiled rice in excess of raw rice cannot be stored in that godown. Hence, they had directed the millers to transport the levy rice to Kazipet, to be exported by rail outside the State. It is further stated in the counter that the godown at Jangaon cannot accept the levy boiled rice as it would incur heavy loss on account of double handling, unloading first at Jangaon and later transporting to Kazipet and unloading in the godown at Kazipet. Under Clause 6(1) of the Levy Order the millers are expected to deliver the milled rice at the place indicated by the F.C.I. It is also averred that since Jangaon is on main National Highway to Kazipet with high transport network system, there is no difficulty in transporting to Kazipet. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that F.C.I, is empowered, by virtue of Clause 6(1) of the Levy Order, to direct the millers to transport "at such place" as was shown by the Corporation and the millers have no choice and the freight charges would be paid according to the rates fixed by the Government of India.
The controversy lies in a narrow compass. It is. not in dispute that the petitioners are liable to supply levy rice under the Levy Order, 1984. Under this order a Purchase Officer has been appointed by F.C.I, to purchase paddy/rice from the millers and dealers. Under C1ause 3 every licensed miller shall sell to the F.C.I. at the procurement price 50% of the total quantity of the rice held in stock by him. Clauses 6(1) and (8) of the Levy Order are the crucial provisions, which we are presently concerned and the answer to the question posed above depends upon the interpretation of these clauses, which are extracted below:
"6. Delivery of Levy rice:- (1) The rice required to be sold to the Food Corporation/State Corporation under Clause 3 and Clause 4 shall be delivered by the licensed miller or the licensed dealer, as the case may be, to the Purchase Officer in such lots, in such manner at such place and at such time as the Government or the Food Corporation/State Corporation or the Purchase Officer may direct.
..... .... ....... ....... .......
(8). In the case of delivery of levy rice at a place other than the mill premises or the business premises of the licensed miller or the licensed dealer, as the case may be, he shall be entitled to the payment of other charges incidental to such delivery including transportation charges, as regulated in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government from time to'' time."
Clause 6(1) clearly empowers F.C.I./Purchase Officer to direct the miller to deliver the rice ''at such place''. According to Clause 6(8) if the delivery is at a place other than the miller''s premises or the business premises of the licensed dealer, the miller/dealer is entitled to the payment of freight charges and other incidental charges in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government from time to time. From a combined reading of these two Sub-clauses, it is clear that the miller is liable to deliver the rice sold to the F.C.I, at the place directed by the Corporation/Purchase Officer on payment of the freight charges and other incidental charges as per the rates fixed by the Government. Relying upon these clauses the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation strenuously contends that the millers are liable to transport the rice at any place directed by the F.C.I. and the miller has no choice or option in this regard. This power of F.C.I. cannot be questioned on any ground including the inconvenience or distance of the place.
The Levy Order was passed under the Essential Commodities Act, mainly for the purpose of procurement of rice by the Food Corporation of India in order to keep buffer stock at the disposal of the Government. Under Clause 3 the miller is certainly liable to sell the rice to the F.C.I at the rates fixed by the F.C.I. That is his primary responsibility. The Corporation can certainly ask the miller to deliver the rice at its godowns that are situate either in that village or in the nearby place. In my view the power vested with the Corporation to direct the miller to deliver the rice ''at such place'' should be viewed in this context. Taking advantage of such power, it is certainly not permissible for the Corporation or the Purchase Officer to direct the miller to deliver the rice at a far-away place. It would entail not only expenditure to the miller but also cause great inconvenience, in securing the transport from a far-away place, to load the rice in to the lorries, travel along with the lorries to the far-away place and to unload them at the place directed by the Corporation. All this should be done by the miller at his own expenditure and labour. There are many villages where it is highly difficult to procure lorry "transport. In such cases it entails not only the waste of man power for the miller to procure the lorry transport from a town, but the freight charges which the Lorry Transporter, demands and the loading and unloading and other incidental charges which the miller should incur would not be reimbursed. In most cases the actual expenditure incurred by the miller may not be acceptable, to the Corporation. On the other hand if the Purchase Officer, who is appointed under the Levy Order and to whom the miller has to sell the paddy, does the job and secure the transportation to the premises of the miller and receive the rice and transport to wherever it is directed to be delivered, the job would be done without putting the miller Into any inconvenience and expenditure. If the godowns are situated in the same place or in the nearby place, certainly the Corporation can direct the miller to deliver the rice to that place and in such event the miller is bound to do so. In the present case the millers are directed to deliver the rice at Kazipet, which is more than 50 Km., from Jangaon. In some cases the distance is 100 Kms. The millers have been delivering the rice to the godowns situated at Jangaon itself, during the previous years. Only this year the Corporation has directed them to transport to Kazipet. The reason given is that they can save expenditure on double handling. The reason given is not sound. They can avoid double handling by directing the Purchase Officer to take the lorries to the miller''s premises and transport them to Kazipet directly without unloading them at Jangaon. In any event to save the expenditure for the Corporation they cannot direct the millers to incur that expenditure and deliver the rice to them at any place they choose which action is certainly unreasonable and violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of lndia. That is certainly not the intention of the Levy Order. In view of the above discussion I am of the view that Clause 6(1) of the Levy Order empowers the F.C.I. /Purchase Officer to direct to deliver the rice at a reasonably accessible place to the millers and not at a place which is more than 25/30 kms. and certainly not at a place which is situated at more than 50 Kms, since such a power is an unreasonable restriction on the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to the millers.
Learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation cited the decision in C. Verikata Reddaiah v. F.C.I. 1990 (1) An.W.R. 146, a decision of the single Judge of this Court holding that the rice millers are entitled to be paid procurement prices fixed under the Act and not an agreed price or negotiated price. The ratio decided in that case has no application to the facts that arise in the present case.
I therefore hold that the Purchase Officer of the F.C.I, has power under Clause 6(1)read with Clause 6(8)of the Levy Order, to direct the miller to deliver the levy rice at a place which shall be reasonably convenient, accessible and nearby place to the miller and such power does not authorise the Purchase Officer to direct the delivery at any place he chooses. What is reasonably convenient, accessible and nearby place to the miller in a particular case depends upon the facts of each case. In this case I hold that the direction to deliver the levy rice at Kazipet is unreasonable and is therefore unsustainable.
In view of the above discussion, the respondents are directed to accept the levy boiled rice from the traders and Millers of the petitioner-Association, at the Central Warehousing Corporation Godowns at Jangaon or at any other godown situate at nearby place. The writ petition is therefore allowed at the admission stage; in the circumstances without costs.