AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Subhashan Reddy, J.—Both the writ petitions are common and Writ Appeal is filed against the order dated 20-2-1998 passed in W.P.M.P. No. 5486 of 1998 in W.P. No. 4581 of 1998; as such, are disposed of by this common Judgment.
Firstly, W.P. No. 3819 of 1998 was filed to declare the action of the respondents in insisting for permits for export of rice to foreign countries as illegal and to further direct the respondents not to interfere or otherwise obstruct the petitioner from procuring and exporting the rice in pursuance of its Export Contract No. P7349, dated 3042-1997. As the application filed by the petitioner seeking to grant permission to export the commodity was still pending with the 1st respondent-Commissioner, Civil Supplies, this Court by interim order dated 12-2-1998 passed in W.P.M.P. No. 4546 of 1998 directed to dispose of the said application by stipulating time. That application having been disposed of on 16-2-1998 by the 1st respondent in his Proceedings CCS Ref. No. P1/259/98E, questioning the same Writ Petition No. 4581 of 1998 has been filed.
Pending W.P. No. 4581 of 1998 directions have been sought for and by interim order dated 20-2-1998 passed in W.P.M.P. No. 5486 of 1998, a learned single Judge of this Court directed the respondents to grant permit to the petitioner as prayed for by 23-2-1998 on condition that the petitioner complies with the formalities in obtaining the permit. Writ Appeal No. 236 of 1998 has been filed against the said order and when it came for hearing as to admission on 24-2-1998 by way of lunch motion and after hearing both the learned Advocate General appearing for the appellant-Government and Mr. E. Manohar, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/ writ petitioner and having regard to their common plea that the writ petitions themselves should be disposed of, writ petitions and writ appeal were heard on 26-2-1998 and reserved for judgment for this day.
The point for consideration is as to the power of the State Governmental authorities, who seek to restrict the movement of levy free rice to foreign countries.
The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was enacted with an object of controlling production, supply and distribution of and trade and commerce in certain commodities which have been specified. Rice is one of such specified essential commodities. There are orders passed by the Central Government as also the State Government in exercise of the powers u/s 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Insofar as the movement of rice is concerned, it is not disputed by the learned Advocate General that excepting the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984, there is no other Central or State Order. Under the above Order, which has been issued in G.O.Ms. No. 28, Food and Agriculture, dated 25-1-1984 by the State Government with prior concurrence of the Central Government, in exercise of the powers contained u/s 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, a rice miller-dealer has to sell levy rice to the Food Corporation/State Corporation at the procurement price 50% of the total quantity of each variety of rice conforming to specification milled by him every day out of stocks of paddy. On such compliance, the miller-dealer shall be entitled to a release certificate enabling him to sell the balance of 50% by way of free sale without restriction of the price. Such release certificate has to be issued under Clause 8 of the said Order and there is no discretion, but to issue the release certificate. A reading of sub-clauses (1) to (3) of Clause 8 of the above Order makes the same abundantly clear. But, the miller-dealer may not be entitled to put forth a right to sell anywhere in the country as the obligation of issuing certificate by the Collector or Authorised Officer under sub-clause (3) of Clause 8 of the above Order is subject to the directions issued by the Government in that regard. The Government, in its considered view, having regard to the objects of the above Order for maintaining the supplies of rice and for securing its equitable distribution at fair prices within the territorial limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh or any part or it, may put forth a condition restricting the movement of the freehold rice for free sale.
The Government had formulated a policy that out of the freehold rice, the miller-dealer is entitled to sell half percentage of the same (25% of the whole of the quantity milled) within the State of Andhra Pradesh and the balance 25% can be taken out of the State. This is, of course, subject to the supply of first 50% of the milled rice at the procurement price by way of levy. This is the policy which is in operation and has not been varied till this day. In fact, a reading of G.O.Ms. No. 566, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs (CS.I) Department, dated 13-10-1997 coupled with Government Memo No. 4584/CS.I/98, dated 9-1-1988 makes it clear that the levy free rice to the extent of the ratio mentioned above can be moved outside the State of Andhra Pradesh enabling the party supplying levy to get remunerative price. There is no Control Order in operation issued in exercise of the powers u/s 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 restricting the above 25% of freehold rice to be sold only within the limits of the country. In fact, such an order can be passed only by the Central Government and in this regard we reject the contention of Mr. E. Monohar, the learned Counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner that the Central Government cannot pass order in exercise of the powers u/s 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 restricting the movement of even the freehold rice beyond the territory of India. But, the admitted fact is that there is no such restrictive order passed by the Central Government. Now, the Government of Andhra Pradesh feels that for the present it is not either feasible or desirable for allowing even the freehold rice to the extent of 25% for sale beyond the territorial limits of the country even though they can be moved out of the State of Andhra Pradesh and can be sold in any part outside the State/s, but not outside India. Reasons are stated as to why such a restriction should be placed. But, we are not concerned with the same. Reasons may be many, but those should be in the shape of a law that too a valid law conforming to the constitutional provisions.
The extent of power of the legislation by the Parliament and the State Legislatures is provided in Article 245 of the Indian Constitution. While Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India, the Legislature of a State can make laws for the whole or any part of the State. As already stated above, the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is one enacted by the Parliament applicable to whole of India, while any State of Indian Nation can pass orders in exercise of the powers u/s 3 of the said Act, but with only prior concurrence of the Central Government. As already stated above, A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 is one such order, which does not place any restriction on the sale of 25% of the freehold rice clothed by release certificate issued under sub-clause (3) of Clause 8 of the said order to any place outside the State. There is no corresponding Central Government order to restrict the movement of the said rice beyond the territorial limits of the country. On the other hand, Trade and Commerce with foreign countries is a legislative item by virtue of Entry 41 of List I of Schedule VII of the Indian Constitution and in exercise of powers under the said item, the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority Act, 1985 (Central Act 2 of 1986) was enacted constituting an authority called "Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority" (shortly called APFPEDA). Section 19(1) of the said Act empowers the Central Government to make provisions for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise controlling the import or export of the Scheduled products, either generally or in specified classes of cases. There is a penal provision in case of violation of the same. Permission has to be obtained for any such export or import of such Scheduled commodity. Rice is one such scheduled commodity coming within the definition of ''Cereals'' in item 9 of the Schedule thereof. The requirement is of a licence containing a Code Number as contemplated under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.
In the instant case, the petitioner holds such a licence under the above Act and it also holds a specific permission from APFPEDA for exporting a specific quantity of 13,750 Metric Tonnes of rice, which is the subject matter of the writ petitions. While it is not disputed that the above quantity is out of 25% of the freehold rice which can be sold outside the State of Andhra Pradesh, the right to export beyond the country is denied by the respondent-authorities, which has got no sanction under law. As such, the petitioner, viz., Priyanka Overseas Limited is entitled to export the same outside the Indian nation after loading the same at Kakinada Port, subject to, however, payment of such charges as may be leviable.
Accordingly, the Writ Petitions and Writ Appeal are disposed of. No costs.
The learned Advocate-General now submits that opportunity may be given to the Collectors of the respective Districts to examine as to whether this quantity of 13,750 Metric Tonnes is out of the 25% of the levy-free rice, which can be taken outside the State and which We held that it can be taken even outside the Country. This should be verified by the respective Collectors within two days of the presentation of a copy of this order and after being satisfied that this quantity of 13,750 Metric Tonnes of rice is out of 25% of levy-free rice, entitled to be taken outside the State, necessary release certificates be issued enabling the petitioner to procure the said quantity of rice from the rice-millers and export outside the country.