H. N. Sundresh v. State of M. P. — 1989 DIGILAW 145 (MP)

ORDER A.G. Qureshi, J. 1. H.N. Sundresh has filed this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Government of M. P. and President of M. P. Laghu Vanopaj (Vyapar & Vikas) Sahakari Sangh Maryadit, Bhopal. The petition has been filed in public interest. It is a common ground that the M. P. Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1964 was passed resulting in creation of State monopoly in the trade of tendu patta, and the sale etc. of tendu leaves was regulated by the provisions made in the said Adhiniyam. A provision was also made for constitution of an Advisory Committee for each year to advice the Government in the matter of fixation of fair and reasonable price of tendu leaves and on other various matters. Such an advisory Committee was also constituted for the year 1989 under Section 6 of the Adhiniyam. The Gazette notification issued be the Government in this behalf in Annexure-R. 1. 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that Co-operative Societies have been constituted for the collection of tendu leaves, but the job of collection of tendu leaves being only of thirty days there will be no work for the members of the Society for the remaining eleven months. The rates fixed by the Government for different areas are also different. As such the policy of the Government is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The new policy of collection of tendu leaves does not take into consideration the difficulties of the poor people smoking bidis, as there is no provision for fixing the price of the bidis in the market. Under the new tendu patta policy the share capital of 39,400 members for formation of Co-operative Societies was paid by the Respondent No. 2, but when now it has been decided to increase 200 members in each of the Society, a condition has been imposed to purchase share of Rs. 10/- by each of the members. Therefore, this policy is also against the principles of equality and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 3. The inclusion of the Police Superintendent and other Officers in the Constitution of District Unions is also contrary to S. 6 of Tendu Patta Adhiniyam, 1964. 10/- by each of the members. Therefore, this policy is also against the principles of equality and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 3. The inclusion of the Police Superintendent and other Officers in the Constitution of District Unions is also contrary to S. 6 of Tendu Patta Adhiniyam, 1964. The decision of calling of advance tender is also against the provisions of law and the policy of the Government between the years 1977 and 1988. The new policy is also not in the interest of the workers because there will be great exploitation of the workers in the new policy, it has also been averred that earlier Marketing Federation and thereafter Respondent No. 2 was involved in the collection of tendu patta till 1988 and the State has suffered a loss of Rs. 120 crores and due to this reason it has not paid royalty to the State Government and had made a request for defered payment of the same. It has also taken a loan of Rs. 10 lacs from Bharat Bhawan and Rs. 10 lacs from the Flying Club of Indore. Examples have also been cited in the petition of certain dealings of tendu leaves due to which the Govt, suffered losses to the tune of crores of rupees. 4. The main contention of the Petitioner appears to be that in the M.P. Tendu Patta Amendment Ordinance of 1988 a new S. 12 (a) has been inserted, whereby the resale of the tendu patta has been prohibited without the permission of the Government. Still Respondent No. 2 has invited tenders from the traders dealing in tendu leaves asking them to give advance tenders for the purchase of tendu leaves without ascertaining the actual produce, quality and the amount which the State can earn from the sale of the leaves. This has been done with a view to make advance amount of Rs. 42 crores to meet the expenses. But this is against the interest of the Government, labourers and the public in general. The experienced workers are not available to the Respondents and that is why it is incurring losses and there is a great mismanagement of the working of the Respondent No. 2. It has also been alleged that due to the mismanagement and corruption in the trade of tendu leaves and purchase of hession clothes etc. The experienced workers are not available to the Respondents and that is why it is incurring losses and there is a great mismanagement of the working of the Respondent No. 2. It has also been alleged that due to the mismanagement and corruption in the trade of tendu leaves and purchase of hession clothes etc. the Government is put to a loss of crores of rupees. 5. Combating the allegations made in the petition the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have averred that reference to M. P. Tendu Patton Ke Nirvartan Hetu Nyuntam Dar Nischyan Adhiniyam, 1972 is misconcieved as the said Act made provisions for the fixation of rate for disposal of tendu leaves for the calendar year 1972 only. Therefore, that provision has no application in relation to disposal of tendu leaves in subsequent years. It has been stated that in the year 1988 by way of royalty only a sum of Rs. 51 crores was received by Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 2 Sahakari Sangh was created in the year 1984 and was initially appointed an agent for collection and disposal of tendu patta in three districts of the State only. In addition to the aforesaid work it was also entrusted with the collection of saal seed and harra. Mahva was also purchased by the Respondent No. 2 at the instructions of the Government at the support price for the betterment of the tribals. In the years 1985 and 1986 the Respondent No. 2 was appointed as an agent in 14 districts of M. P., 17 districts in 1987, 21 districts in 1988 and in 1989 for the whole of the State. The Respondent No. 2 has paid Rs. 6.5 crores by way of royalty to the Government for the year 1984 in addition to the refund of the amount that was incurred by the Government on the establishment of Respondent No. 2. In the years 1985-1986 an amount of Rs. 16 crores, in 1986-87 an amount of Rs. 27-57 crores was paid to Respondent No. 1 by Respondent No. 2. In the year 1988-89 a sum of Rs. 26.30 crores has already been paid to the Respondent No. 1 by Respondent No. 2 by way of royalty after adjusting the advance royalty. In the years 1985-1986 an amount of Rs. 16 crores, in 1986-87 an amount of Rs. 27-57 crores was paid to Respondent No. 1 by Respondent No. 2. In the year 1988-89 a sum of Rs. 26.30 crores has already been paid to the Respondent No. 1 by Respondent No. 2 by way of royalty after adjusting the advance royalty. As such in all these years the Respondent No. 2 has suffered no loss and has not made any prayer to Respondent No. 1 for exemption from payment of royalty. It is not short of funds and the Bharat Bhawan, the Flying Club etc. have deposited their amount in view of the fact that it is secure with Respondent No. 2 and fetches good rate of interest. 6. The allegation of the Petitioner pertaining to discrimination in the payment of wages has also been denied. It has been stated that the Govt, has already fixed rates for the labourers for the entire State. As regards the allegation of corruption it has been stated that they are all baseless and unfounded. In any case the Respondent No. 2 cannot be held responsible for any of the acts done prior to 1984. The formulation of the scheme inviting advance tenders has also been defended on the ground that it is in the interest of the people and revenue of the State. Figures have also been quoted to show that the Respondent No. 2 has not been negligent either in the matter of pruning of the tendu leaves and the interest of the State has always been safeguarded. The present policy strives to eliminate the exploitation by the contractors of the weaker section of the Society as higher rates would be available to the labourers for collection of tendu leaves. The manufacturers will have direct access to the Respondent No 2 for the purchase of tendu leaves from the godowns of Respondent No. 2 and will not have to depend upon the contractors who were making undue profit in the trade and causing loss to Respondent No. 1. 7. The manufacturers will have direct access to the Respondent No 2 for the purchase of tendu leaves from the godowns of Respondent No. 2 and will not have to depend upon the contractors who were making undue profit in the trade and causing loss to Respondent No. 1. 7. It has also been explained by the Respondent No. 2 that as in some area of the State Respondent No. 2 was collecting and purchasing tendu patta whereas the Contractors were collecting and purchasing tendu leaves from a large area of the State, so they were in a position to sell their tendu leaves outside the State in preference to the tendu leaves collected departmentally. The method adopted by the contractors gave rise to unhealthy competition and they made every attempt to see that the tendu patta was not sold in time. Under the new policy the entire quantity of tendu leaves would be collected and stored by Respondent No. 2, thus, eliminating unhealthy competition. 8. After perusing the respective averments of the parties and the documents filed along with the petition and the reply and having considered the arguments advarced by both the parties we are of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. It is not in dispute that a new policy pertaining to collection, storing and sale of tendu leaves has been formulated by the Government. The Government is of the opinion that intermediaries will be eliminated and the maximum benefit of the collection and sale of tendu leaves will go to the labourers and the State. As a result the State will have more funds at its disposal in the welfare work. Although arguments were advanced extraneously against the policy of the Government inviting advance tender, but during the pendency of this petition thai policy has been withdrawn. Therefore, we need not go into the details or merits or demerits of that policy. According to the present policy the Government has decided to eliminate the inte rmediaries and to collect, store and sell tendu leaves through Respondent No. 2. It is not in dispute before usual at the Government by enacting M. P. Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1964 has created State mono poly in the trade of tendu leaves and the collection, storage, sale etc. of the tendu leaves have been regulated by the provisions of that Act. It is not in dispute before usual at the Government by enacting M. P. Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1964 has created State mono poly in the trade of tendu leaves and the collection, storage, sale etc. of the tendu leaves have been regulated by the provisions of that Act. The act itself has not been challenged before us and, therefore, the State monopoly in the trade of tendu leaves cannot be questioned. It is true that the State has to act in such a way that it is not arbitrary, unfair or such which may cause loss to the public revenue or may be against the public interest. 9. Allegations have been made in the petition about the corruption by some elements in the trade. Suffice it to say that there are ample provisions under the different acts under which the Government may enquire the deeds of the miscreants or the corrupt persons working under ii and if found responsible for acting in a way causing loss to the revenue of the state they can be dealth with effectively under the different provisions of the law under which the State has a power to act. But apprehen ding a mismanagement loss or corruption in the tendu patta trade by the State, one cannot claim that the policy adopted by the Government is against the public interest or is going to cause loss to the exchequer. The allegations do not indicate that in case the new policy is implemented it will be against the public interest or against the interest of the labourers. There are allegations against the Marketing Federation & Respdt. No. 2 that it has incurred losses to the tune of Rs. 120 crores, but the allegations have been denied by Respondent No. 2 quoting the figures of profit which it has made in the previous years and it has also been stated that the royalty amount has been paid to the Government and the financial condition of Respondent No. 2 is also sound. As such we do not see any reason to entertain this petition on the ground that the new tendu patta policy of the Government is in any way against the public interest of the interest of the labourers involved in the plucking and storing of the tendu leaves. 10. In the result we find no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.