V. Arumugham Pillai vs The State of Tamil Nadu and Others

K.B.N. Singh, C.J.—This appeal has been filed by the writ Petitioner against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition.

The Appellant filed the writ petition for the issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the District Supply Officer, Tiruchirappalli in his proceedings, dated 31st May 1983. The Appellant admittedly is a holder of an wholesale licence granted to him under the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice Doalors Licence Order, 1974, It is the undisputed position before us that the Appellant imported paddy from Andhra Pradesh which consignment he received by Railway on 4th April 1983. On 8th April 1983, he applied for transport authorisation permit to move he paddy in question from Tiruchi District to Coonoor in the Nilgiris District. As no order was passed on the prayer of the Appellant to issue necessary transport authorisation permit the Appellant filed Writ Petition No. 3533 of 1983 on 15th April 1983 and also filed a petition for interim direction, namely Writ Miscellaneous Petition No. 5285 of 1983 on 10th May 1983 to issue movement authorisation in favour of the Appellant to carry the paddy in question to Coonoor as stated above.

On 10th May 1983, after hearing the Appellant and the Government Pleader, an order of interim direction directing the authorities to dispose of the Appellant''s application for movement authorisation within two weeks, was made. However, on the very next day, namely, 10th May 1983, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O. Ms. No. 293, Food and Co-operation Department, prohibiting transport of paddy outside Tanjore District, Chidambaram and Kattumannarkoil Taluks of Sourth Areat District and Musiri, Kulithalai, Trichy and Lalgudi Taluks of Trichy District. The Appellant thereafter claims to have converted the paddy into rice and there is no controversy before us that between paddy in question has been converted into rice. The Appellant had applied for transport authorisation for rice to be transported to Coonoor in Nilgiris District, which, of course, was rejected by the third Respondent by order dated 31st May 1983 on the ground that the Appellant has violated condition 7(i) of the licence issued to him, which reads as follows.

The licence shall not

(i) enter into any transaction involving purchase sale of storage for sale of paddy and rice in a speculative manner prejudicial to the maintenance and easy availability of supplies of paddy and rice in the market.

It is against this order the writ petition was filed, which has beer rejected by the learned Judge.

Mr. Doraisami, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, has submitted that there is no ban order so far as transport of rice to another district in Tamil Nadu is concerned and that, as the Appellant was trying to take the rice in question from Triuchi to Coonoor which is in Tamil Nadu, the order of the District Supply Officer refusing to issue the transport it and authorisation permit, as also the order of the learned Judge rejecting his writ petition, are based on an erroneous assumption that what was sought to be transported by the Appellant was paddy and notice.

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the Appellant has been withholding from sale larger quantity of paddy than what he could have kept in sore and also after conversion a large quantity of rice, and, therefore, he was not entitled for the permit. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that, as there was Carcity Tiruchi District, neither paddy nor rice could be allowed to be sent out of Tiruchi District to any other adjoining Distinct

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties .We art of the opinion that condition No. 7(i) of the licence is not attracted at all in the instant case. Condition No. 7 (i) which has been quoted above, relates to transactions involving purchase, sale or storage for sale of paddy and rice in a speculative manner prejudicial to the maintenance and easy availability of supplies of paddy and rice in the market.

There is nothing to indicate that the transaction entered into by the Appellant was speculative in any manner, so as to attract condition No. 7(i) of the licence. As already mentioned, the Appellant imparted paddy from Andhra Pradesh, and received or by railway on 4th April 19 83. Within four days thereafter, on 8th April 1983, he applied for transport authorization permit to move the paddy to Coonoor (in Nilgiris District), within the State of Tamil Nadu. As no order was issued, the Appellant Wed Writ Petition No. 3533 of 1983 on 5th April 1983, and Writ Petition Miscellaneous No. 5285 of 1983 on 10th May 983 forum interim direction, which was issued in favour of the Appellant and the Appellant would have got such permission, but for G.O. Ms. No. 293) dated 11th May 1983 prohibiting transport of paddy from Triuchi among other districts. Because of the above Government Order being unable to move the paddy in question from Tiruchi to Coonoor in spite of the order of this Court, the Appellant converted the paddy into rice. It has not been brought to our notice that there was any prohibition against converting paddy into rice and thereafter applying for transport of the rice from Tiruchi to Coouoor. From the aforesaid facts it is apparent that there is nothing to indicate that the Appellant was involved in any speculation purchase, sale or storage for sale of paddy or rice because all these events took place between 4th April 1983 and 31st May 1983. The Appellant could Hot have speculated that on 11th May 1983 the Government would come forward with G.O. Ms. No. 293, prohibiting transport of paddy from the district in question of the Appellant having imported paddy from Andhra Pradesh, and the conversion of paddy into rice and the transport of the rice from Tiruchi to another district not being prohibited under any law, what was required was only a transport authorization permit. The transaction in question has, therefore no element of speculation, so as to characterise it as a speculative transaction. The term speculative has not been defined under the Tamil Nadu Paddy and Rice Dealers Licence Order, 1974 The Concise Oxford Dictionary gives its meaning as involving risk of loss. Speculation, according to Ramanatha Iyer''s Law Lexicon (page 1209) means more or less risky investment of money for the sake of, and an expectation of unusually large profits One of the definitions of speculate is to take the risk of loss in view of possible gain. (vide-Words and Phrases-Permanent, edition volume XXXIX-A page 474).

The transaction in question being in the ordinary course it having taken place between 4th April 1983 and 3lst May 1983 there does not appear to be any element of speculation in it.

As far as the submission of the learned Government Pleader that there was scarcity in Tiruchi District and that therefore neither paddy nor ride could be allowed to be moved out of Tiruchi District to any other adjoining district, it has also no substance in view of two letters issued by the State Government in respect of another dealer, similarly situated as the Appellant, which may be reproduced here:

GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

Fort. St. George, MADRAS-60000.

FOOD AND CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT.

Letter No. 35985/B/ 1983-, dated 4th June 1983.

From Thiru N. Krishnamurthy, I.A.S. Commissioner and Secretary to Government

To The Collector of Tiruchirappalli (w.e.)

Sir,

Sub: Paddy and Rice-Movement of paddy from Tiruchirapalli to other areas-Regarding

Rel: Thiru M. Subbiah Chetty and Sons, Tiruchira palli, letter dated 27th May 1983.

I am directed to enclose a copy of the reference cited and to request you to verify whether the paddy has actually been moved from Andhra Pradesh and if so, permit the petitioner to hull the paddy and sell it as rice either in his place or move to other places... district for sale.

Yours faithfully, (Sd.) For Commissioner and Secretary to Government,

D.O.Lr. No. 41488/B1,83-1, dated 30th June 1983.

My dear Natesan,

Sub: Paddy and rice-Movement of Andhra Pradesh rice-Issue of movement authorisation Regarding

Ref: Government Lr. No. 35985/B/1/83-I, dated 4th June 1983.

Thiru M. Subbiah Chetty and Sons, Trichy letter, dated 25th June 1983 have represented.

In this connection, I am to state that the Government in the letter first cited, have clearly instructed you to verify whether the paddy has actually been moved from Andhra Pradesh and if so, to permit the Petitioner to hull the paddy and sell it as rice either in Trichy District or seven other districts for sale. In spite of this, it has been reported that you have not issued the movement authorisation to the Petitioner for moving rice to other districts. I am, therefore, to request you to issue the move meat authorisation after verifying that the rice is produced from paddy purchased in Andhra Pradesh.

Yours sincerely, (Sd.)

To Thiru P. Natesan I.A.S. Collector of Tiruchirappalli (w.e.)

A reference to the aforesaid two letters clearly indicates that the contention raised by the Government Pleader about scarcity of rice in Tiruchy is not supported. Obviously, the local authority has been pulled up for not issuing the movement authorisation to Thiru M. Subbiah Chetty and Sons, wholesale dealer in Tiruchi. Be that as it may, since we do not find anything to indicate that the transaction entered into by the. Appellant for the transport of rice to Coonoor was in any manner speculative in nature the order refusing transport permit to the Appellant by the District Supply Officer, Tiruchi, has to be quashed and the writ appeal has to be allowed, directing the third Respondent to issue the necessary authorisation permit to the Appellant for transporting rice to Coonoor.

The wit appeal is accordingly allowed. But we make no order as to costs.