State of Punjab and Others vs Aggarwal Rice and General Mills and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—Is a licensed miller entitled to the payment of price for the levy rice at the rate which is prevalent at the time when he mills and delivers the rice or at the rate which was prevalent at the time he was required to mill and deliver the rice? This is the short question that arises for consideration in these two appeals. The learned Single Judge accepted the writ petition of the respondent and held that he was entitled to "the rate of levy rice as existed on the date of delivery in respect of the levy rice delivered in the marketing season 1988-89 which had been short delivered during the marketing season 1987-88." The Food Corporation as well as the State of Punjab have filed these two letters patent appeals. A few facts may be noticed.

In the year 1987-88, the respondent purchased 1740 tonnes of paddy. He was required to mill and deliver 75 per cent of the levy rice to the State Government during the marketing season 1987-88. He fell short of the target by 540 tonnes. However, he muled the paddy during the year 1988-89 and delivered the levy rice in respect of 540 tonnes of paddy. Having delivered the rice, he demanded the price at the rate which was prevalent in the year 1988-89. The Department having not accepted his claim, he filed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge accepted the claim and held that "a licensed miller/licensed dealer is entitled to procurement levy price prevalent on the date of sale. The marketing season has no relevance with the procurement price of levy rice payable to a miller," It was further held that "if levy rice is not delivered within the marketing season, the miller is not entitled to sell the resultant (levy free) rice in the open market.............. .the levy order no where provides as to what would happen if the miller fails to shell the paddy purchased by it during that very season. Thus a licensed miller/licensed dealer is not entitled to the procurement price of levy at the rate prevalent on the date of sale thereof. .. ..."

It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the provisions of the Punjab Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1983.

The claim made on behalf of the appellants has been controverted by Mr. D.S. Brar, learned counsel for the respondent.

Firstly, the provisions of the Levy Order may be briefly noticed. Clause 5 '' prescribes the time limit for milling the paddy. It lays down that "the licensed miller shall ensure that all paddy purchased by him in any marketing season is milled before the commencement of the next marketing season and no paddy shall remain unmilled with him at such commencement." According to the explanation, the marketing season commences from the Ist day of October each year. Thus, in the context of the present case, the marketing season had commenced on October 1, 1987, and would have continued till September 30, 1988. During this period, the respondent had admittedly brought 1740 tonnes of paddy. He was bound to mill the entire quantity. He did not. He milled only 1200 tonnes. Having failed to mill 540 tonnes of paddy, the respondent violated the provisions of Clause 5. Instead of suffering any loss, he turned the violation of the order to his advantage and claimed price at the rate prevalent during the marketing season which commenced on October 1, 1988. Could he do so?

Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the provisions of Clause 7(3) of the order to contend that the payment had to be made at the rate which was prevalent in the marketing season 1988-89. This clause reads as under :-

"Full payment shall be made within 24 hours of the delivery of rice after making such deductions in the total price of rice as are allowed in Schedule IV assessed on the basis of analysis as provided in Sub-clause (4)."

A perusal of the above provisions shows that the Department is bound to pay the price of the rice delivered by the miller within 24 hours of the delivery. The obvious purpose is to ensure that the miller is not harassed. The provision, however, does not imply that the miller is at liberty to deliver the rice at his pleasure. This clause has to be read with Clause 5. If the two are harmoniously construed, it would follow that the miller has to mill the paddy during the marketing season itself. Thereafter it has to be delivered to the Government or any other agency or person authorised by it. The transaction must be completed within the same season. Then, the payment has to be made within 24 hours of the delivery. A person cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong and to claim higher price for the delay caused by him. If the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is accepted, the appellant shall be burdened with a liability fox the default committed by the respondent We are reluctant to reach such a conclusion. In fact, on a plain reading of the provision, we find that such a conclusion is not possible.

The payment of the amount under the judgment of the learned Single Judge had been stayed by the Division Bench vide order dated January 7, 1992, in C.M. No. 1898 (LPA) of 1991. This order was confirmed by the Bench vide order dated March 23, 1992. As a result, the payment has not been made to the respondent. We accept both the appeals and direct that the payment shall not be made. Resultantly, the writ petition shall stand dismissed. However, we make no order as to costs.