JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, C.J. - The petitioners are licensed millers. Under the U. P. Rice and Paddy (Levy) Order, 1968, they sold 60% of their production to the State Government on payment of the scheduled price mentioned in that control order. In the usual course of business, the petitioners sold the levy rice to the Government. After a while, the Government faced shortage of storage facility. The petitioners godowns were taken and the rice sold by the petitioners to the Government was kept in those godowns under lock and key of the Government departments. After some time, the rice so stored was despatched in accordance with the Government requirements. At the time oi despatch, it was discovered that there was loss in weight. The respondents held the petitioners responsible for this loss. They evaluated the loss and calculated the amount payable by the petitioners on that account. In due course, they started deducting the loss so determined from the payment that were to be made to the petitioners for the sale of the current stock of levy rice (at the rate of 60% of the current production). The petitioners felt aggrieved at this forcible deduction. They came to this Court with a prayer that the respondents be directed not to make these illegal deductions. 2. The respondents case is that at the time of sale of the levy rice, the petitioners voluntarily offered to keep them in their own godowns on a specific undertaking that they will be responsible for the loss of quality and quantity of the stored rice so long as it remained stored in their godowns. At the time of despatch, it was found that there was loss of weight for which the reason was loss of moisture content of the stored rice due to defective storage facilities. In view of the undertaking given by the petitioners, they were responsible to make good this loss. Since they failed to pay, the respondents were obliged to make the deductions from the price payable to the petitioners for the current supply of levy rice. 3. The position under the U. P. Rice and Paddy (Levy) Order, 1968, is that by clause 3 of that Order, every licensed miller is to sell to the State Government at the scheduled price 60 % of his production. 3. The position under the U. P. Rice and Paddy (Levy) Order, 1968, is that by clause 3 of that Order, every licensed miller is to sell to the State Government at the scheduled price 60 % of his production. Under clause 5, the scheduled price is for fair average quality of rice or paddy of a variety described in Schedule II and conforming to the specifications prescribed in Schedule III and has to be subject to the deductions specified in column 5 of Schedule III. Schedule II prescribes the price payable for each variety of rice or paddy. Schedule III prescribes the quality specifications for fair average quality of rice. At serial number 8 is the heading 'moisture. The tolerance limit is 13.5%. In column 5, it has been stated: "Rice in which moisture exceeds the limit specified in column 3 shall not be deemed to be superior Basmati rice." There is no dispute that at the time of sale, the moisture content of the rice sold by the petitioner was usually more than 13.5%. It was 15% or 15% or near-about. But since the tolerance limit was 13.5%, the respondents made payment treating the petitioners rice to be of fair average quality considering that its moisture content is 13.6%. In fact, the moisture content was 16%, but the petitioners were made payments as if moisture point was 13%, namely, the petitioners were not paid the price of 3% of the rice on the ground that moisture content was beyond the tolerance limit. Thus far there is no dispute. 4. At the time of despatch, the respondents again appear to have weighed the rice stored in the godowns and they found that the weight has gone down from what it actually was at the time of purchase. If a bag of rice contained 100 Kgs. at the time of its purchase, it was found that it had only 98.5 Kgs. at the time of despatch and the reason was only one, namely, that there has been loss of moisture during storage. No other reason has been assigned for this loss of weight even in the counter-affidavit. The respondents made out a statement of shortage, an example of which is annexure 8 to the writ petition. at the time of despatch and the reason was only one, namely, that there has been loss of moisture during storage. No other reason has been assigned for this loss of weight even in the counter-affidavit. The respondents made out a statement of shortage, an example of which is annexure 8 to the writ petition. It states the quantity purchased, the moisture at the time of purchase, the moisture allowed at the time of purchase, date of lifting and the moisture found at the time of lifting. The actual moisture was 16%. Allowance for moisture at the time of purchase was made and the amount of moisture at the time of lifting was in some cases 14.5% or 12.5% or 12% in other lots. 5. We asked the learned Standing Counsel as to how they have calculated 1he actual storage loss for which a demand for Rs. 26,481.22 has been made in Annexure 8. But it is apparent that the loss of weight was calculated keeping in mind the actual weight of the bag at the time of purchase, it appears to us that the respondents have forgotten that this actual weight was not the weight for which they had paid. They paid for that weight less 3% because the actual moisture was 16% but they actually gave allowance at 13%. They did not pay on the actual weight on the ground that the moisture content was more. At the time of despatch they found that the moisture content came down from 16% to 14.5% or 12%. In fact, the moisture content has been reduced by the passage of time. It has not increased. Up to 13% they had already allowed for moisture. If the moisture content goes below 13% they may have some cause for grievance, but, in the counter affidavit it is stated: "The average moisture content have been calculated at 13% and no deductions are made in case the moisture contents are 13% or below 13%. In case moisture content exceeds 13%, necessary deductions are made as per specifications which were acceptable to the petitioners." If this was the situation at the time of purchase, we fail to see how can a different yardstick be permitted to apply at the time of despatch. If the moisture content goes below 13%, they have no cause of grievance. In case moisture content exceeds 13%, necessary deductions are made as per specifications which were acceptable to the petitioners." If this was the situation at the time of purchase, we fail to see how can a different yardstick be permitted to apply at the time of despatch. If the moisture content goes below 13%, they have no cause of grievance. In a case where it is above 13% still they have no cause of grievance because initially when they purchased it, it was more than 13% and they did not pay for the excess over 13%. In either view of the matter, the shortage due to storage, determined in the manner described in Annexure 8 to the writ petition, is misconceived and invalid. 6. Even if it be assumed that the respondents had some cause for making a demand for the loss, it is not understandable how could they make arbitrary deductions from the statutory price which they are bound to make for the stock purchased. Under the control order they are bound to pay the scheduled price. It does not authorise them to make any deductions. No other authority has been cited in support of this action. The decision of the Supreme Court in General Manager, North East Frontier Railway v. Dinabandhu Chakraborty ((1970) 20 Fac LR 332) is a case in point. In that case certain liabilities said to have been incurred by the employee were sought to be deducted from the provident fund. There Rule 1341 of the Railway Provident Fund Rules entitled the Controlling Officers to deduct an amount due under a liability. The Supreme Court held that before any deduction can be made, it must be established that under a liability incurred by the subscriber, the amount deducted is due from the subscriber. He contended that he was not responsible for the loss in question. It was held that under the Rules, no authority was constituted for deciding any dispute that might arise between the subscriber and the Government as regards any alleged incurring of liability nor as regards its quantum. Therefore the only forum in which these disputes can be decided is the civil court. The Government cannot be a judge in its own cause in the absence of any statutory provision empowering it to act as such. Therefore the only forum in which these disputes can be decided is the civil court. The Government cannot be a judge in its own cause in the absence of any statutory provision empowering it to act as such. Hence the action taken by the Government in deducting from his provident fund the amount of shortage of money in remittances made by the railway employee while serving as a station master was arbitrary, was quashed. The case is applicable on all fours. 7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed not to make any deductions from the statutory price payable by them for purchase of levy rice on account of alleged shortage in storage of past consignments. The petitioners will be entitled to costs. The security furnished by the petitioners in pursuance of the intrim order of this Court is discharged.