JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - The petitioner is a registered dealer in fertilizer as Distributor of M/s. Indian Explosive Limited, on 18th May, 1974 the petitioner placed an order for the supply of 132 tons of fertilizer to the aforesaid company. On 27th May, 1974 the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 6000 as advance through a draft dated 20th May, 1974 of the State Bank of India Bilaspur. The stock of the fertilizer purchased by the petitioner was despatched by M/s. Indian Explosive Limited through railway under Railway Receipt assigned to self on 30th May, 1974. The petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,23,106 at Meerut officer of M/s. Indian Explosive Limited and to obtain railway receipt from them. In pursuance of that direction the petitioner paid the requisite amount at the Indian Explosive Limited on 3rd June, 1974 and thereupon the railway receipt was endorsed in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner took delivery of the bags of fertilizers on the basis of the railway receipt so endorsed in its favour. The Government of India issued a notification on 1st June, 1974 making an alteration in the price of fertilizer. This notification was to take effect from the same date i.e. 1st June, 1974. The State Government of Uttar Pradesh in its turn issued an order on 14th June, 1974 known as Uttar Pradesh Fertilizer (Prices) (Supplementary) Order, 1974. Paragraph 3 of this order reads as under:- "3. Maximum price that may be charged or retained for fertilizer carried over from May 31, 1974. No registered dealer shall charge or retain, or enter into or enforce any contract for charging, in respect of any fertilizer sold to any person on or after June 1, 1974, from out of any stock carried over by him from May 31, 1974, a price exceeding the maximum price fixed under clause (3) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957, as it prevailed on May 31, 1974." 2. The petitioner sells fertilizer to various consumers on the basis of permits issued by the District Magistrate or the Block Development Officer. Acting upon the order referred to above issued by the State Government the District authorities issued a circular to the petitioner to sell the aforesaid fertilizer purchased by it in accordance with the order issued by State Government. 3. Acting upon the order referred to above issued by the State Government the District authorities issued a circular to the petitioner to sell the aforesaid fertilizer purchased by it in accordance with the order issued by State Government. 3. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3501 of 1974 in this Court. This writ petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 14th August, 1974. The case of the petitioner is that a certified copy of the judgment was produced before the district authorities with a request that permits may now be issued for the sale of the fertilizer. The district authorities, however, raised-an objection that the judgment of the High Court was not clear. Thereupon the petitioner made an application in this Court for clarification of the order. This application was disposed of by the following order :- "This application appears to have been filed on account of some misunderstanding. Our judgment is clear that the U.P. Government Supplementary Order dated 14-6-1974 is not applicable to any stock of fertilizer received by the dealers after 31-5-1974, no further order is needed on this application. File, A copy of this order be given to the applicant on payment of necessary charges." 3A. The petitioner thereafter again approached the district authorities for the issue of necessary permits to enable it to sell the stock of fertilizer referred to above. The district authorities, however, took the view that the petitioner was entitled to sell the aforesaid stock of fertilizer on the old rates and not on the new rates which became applicable with effect from 1st of June, 1974. This stand taken by the district authorities was challenged by the petitioner by filing another writ petition which was rejected on 4th October, 1974. The question is as to whether the stock of fertilizer referred to above was obtained by the petitioner after 31st May, 1974 was left to be decided by the District Magistrate on the basis of such evidence as may be produced by the petitioner. Thereupon the petitioner produced evidence before the District Magistrate in support of his contention that the fertilizer in question had been received by him after 31st May, 1974. Thereupon the petitioner produced evidence before the District Magistrate in support of his contention that the fertilizer in question had been received by him after 31st May, 1974. The District Magistrate, however, did not agree with the stand taken by the petitioner in this behalf and by an order dated 4th December, 1974 held that the stocks of the fertilizer in question were actually obtained by the petitioner on 30th May, 1974, i.e. before 1st June, 1974. The result of this view taken by the District Magistrate was that the petitioner became liable to sell the stock of fertilizer aforesaid not on the new rates which came into force after 1st June, 1974 but on the rate which was prevalent before the said date. It is this order dated 4th December, 1974 passed by the District Magistrate Rampur which is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition. 4. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on a plain reading of Paragraph 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Fertilizer (Prices) (Supplementary) Order, 1974 it was apparent that the restriction placed in the said paragraph upon a registered dealer from charging price at the new rate from any person to whom the fertilizer was sold by it was only in respect of "any stock carried over by him from May 31, 1974". 5. According to counsel for the petitioner the crucial question which arose in the instant case was as to whether the petitioner can be said to be the owner of the fertilizer in question on 31st May, 1974 or on any date prior thereto. According to him it is only if the petitioner was the owner of the fertilizer in question on or before 31st May, 1974 that it could be said that the stock of the fertilizer aforesaid had been carried over by the petitioner from May 31, 1974. It was further submitted that the circumstance that the petitioner paid the price of the fertilizer in question to M/s. Indian Explosive Limited on the rates applicable before the notification dated 1st June, 1974 issued by the Central Government was of no consequence. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on Sections 23 and 25 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on Sections 23 and 25 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). These two sections for the sake of convenience are being reproduced below :- "23 (1) Where there is a contract for the sale of unascertained or future goods by description and goods of that description and in a deliverable state are unconditionally appropriated to the contract either by the seller with the assent of the buyer or by the buyer with the assent of the seller, the property in the goods thereupon passes to the buyer. Such assent may be expressed or implied, and may be given either before or after the appropriation is made. (2) Where, in pursuance of the contract, the seller delivers the goods to the buyer or to a carrier or other bailee (whether named by the buyer or not) for the purposes of transmission to the buyer, and does not reserve the right of disposal, he is deemed to have unconditionally appropriated the goods to the contract. 25. (1) Where there is a contract for the sale of specific goods or where goods are subsequently appropriated to the contract, the seller may, by the terms of the contract or appropriation, reserve the right of disposal of the goods until certain conditions are fulfilled. In such case, notwithstanding the delivery of the goods to a buyer, or to a carrier or other bailee for the purpose of transmission to the buyer, the property in the goods does not pass to the buyer until the conditions imposed by the seller are fulfilled. (2) Where goods are shipped or delivered to a railway administration for carriage by railway and by the bill of lading or railway receipt, as the case may be, the goods are deliverable to the order of the seller or his agent, the seller is prima facie deemed to reserve the right of disposal. (2) Where goods are shipped or delivered to a railway administration for carriage by railway and by the bill of lading or railway receipt, as the case may be, the goods are deliverable to the order of the seller or his agent, the seller is prima facie deemed to reserve the right of disposal. (3) Where the seller of goods draws on the buyer for the price and transmits to the buyer the bill of exchange together with the bill of lading or, as the case may be, the railway receipt, to secure acceptance or payment of the bill of exchange, the buyer is bound to return the bill of lading or the railway receipt if he does not honour the bill of exchange; and, if he wrongfully retains the bill of lading or the railway receipt, the property in the goods does not pass to him." Emphasis has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the words "and does not reserve the right of disposal", occurring in sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act. 6. Emphasis was also placed by him in sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act which, inter alia, contemplates that where goods are delivered to a railway administration for carriage by railway and by railway receipt the goods are deliverable to the order of the seller or his agent, the seller is prima facie deemed to reserve the right of disposal. 7. According to the counsel for the petitioner since in the instant case the railway receipt by which the fertilizer in question was delivered to the railway administration for carriage was assigned in the name of self, it was clearly a case covered by sub-section (2) of Section 23 and sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act and the title in the goods could not pass and actually did not pass till the said railway receipt was endorsed in the name of the petitioner by the Meerut Branch of M/s. Indian Explosive Limited on 3rd June 1794, after the petitioner made payment of the balance of the sale consideration. In our opinion this submission has substance and must be accepted. 8. For the respondents, on the other hand, it has been urged by the learned Standing Counsel that it was a case to which S. 19 of the Act was applicable. In our opinion this submission has substance and must be accepted. 8. For the respondents, on the other hand, it has been urged by the learned Standing Counsel that it was a case to which S. 19 of the Act was applicable. Section 19 as is apparent from its subsection (1) applies to sale of specific or ascertained goods. In this connection it has been urged by the counsel for the petitioner that since M/s. Indian Explosive Limited manufacture thousands of tons of fertilisers out of which 132 tons alone were purchased by the petitioner it was not a case where it could be said that it was a contract for the sale of specific or ascertained goods. So far as this point is concerned we are of opinion that even if it may be accepted for the sake of argument that it was a case of contract for the sale of specific or ascertained goods, the question as to when the property in the goods was transferred to the buyer is to be ascertained from the fact as to when did the parties intend it to be transferred. Subsection (3) of Section 19 provides that unless a different intention appears, the rules contained in Sections 20 to 24 are the rules for ascertaining the intention of the parties as to the time at which the property in the goods is to pass to the buyer. 9. Section 23 is one of the sections referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 19. If the intention of the parties is to be gathered with reference to the requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 23 read with sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act it does appear that the property in the goods did not pass to the petitioner till 3rd June, 1974 in view of the fact that even though the fertiliser was delivered to the railway administration for carriage, the railway receipt was not endorsed in the name of the petitioner but was assigned to self and was endorsed in the name of the petitioner on 3rd June, 1974. Till such endorsement was made the petitioner was not entitled to take delivery of the goods. Till such endorsement was made the petitioner was not entitled to take delivery of the goods. In case the petitioner had refused to pay the price of the fertiliser in question and consequently the railway receipt had not been endorsed in its name the fertiliser in question would never have come in its possession nor it could be held its owner. Whether or not the petitioner would have been guilty of breach of contract is a question which is not relevant for our consideration in the instant case. In this view of the matter it is apparent that the stock of the fertiliser in question cannot be treated as 'stock carried over by him from May 31, 1974", within the meaning of paragraph 3 of the 1974 Order referred to above. 10. Consequently the embargo placed by the said Paragraph 3 on the sale of stock of fertiliser carried over by a registered dealer from May 31, 1974 was not applicable to the fertiliser in question. In our opinion the fortuitous circumstance that the price which the petitioner actually paid to M/s. Indian Explosive Limited was at the old rate would not have any material bearing in the interpretation of Sections 23 and 25 of the Act. The impugned order passed by the District Magistrate, Rampur on 14th December, 1974 could not therefore, be sustained. 11. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. The impugned order dated 4th December, 1974 passed by the District Magistrate, Rampur respondent No. 2 is quashed. The bank guarantee given by the petitioner in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court is discharged.