Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1350 (PNJ)

Anand Cotton Factory v. Union of India

2001-11-29

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA

body2001
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - This is a bunch of eight petitions. The counsel have referred to the pleadings in C.W.P. No. 833 of 2001. 2. The petitioners herein are running rice shellers. They are aggrieved by the communication dated December 3, 1998 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Food and Consumer Affairs, Department of Food and Civil Supplies; to the Secretary, Food & Supplies Department, Government of Punjab. The driage allowance on paddy was reduced from 2% to 1%. 3. The solitary contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the action of the Government in reducing the driage allowance from 2 per cent to 1 per cent for the period from October 1996 to December 31, 1996, is arbitrary and illegal. 4. Counsel for the respondents have not disputed that the driage allowance on paddy has been allowed at the rate of 2 per cent since the year 1979-80. It has also been allowed at the rate of 2 per cent or even at more than 3 per cent during the period from 1997 onwards. However, during the interRegulation m from October 1996 to December 31, 1996, it was reduced from 2 per cent to 1 per cent. 5. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we find that the short question that arises is - Was there any basis for reducing the driage allowance from 2 per cent to 1 per cent during the period from October 1996 to December 31, 1996 ? 6. The only justification advanced by Mr. Bhandari, appearing for respondent No. 1, is that the original rate of driage allowance was provisional. Thus, the Government was competent to alter it at a subsequent stage. 7. It has not been disputed by the counsel for the respondents that ever since the year 1979 driage allowance of 2 per cent has been allowed. Even during the year 1996 the reduction was ordered for the interRegulation m of only three months. In the post December 1996 period viz., 1997-98, 1998-99, the driage allowance has, admittedly, been allowed at even 3 per cent or more. It is, thus, clear that the rice shellers have availed of the driage allowance at the rate of 2 per cent since the year 1979-80. It has only been denied and recovery on that account was ordered for the period of three months. Why ? It is, thus, clear that the rice shellers have availed of the driage allowance at the rate of 2 per cent since the year 1979-80. It has only been denied and recovery on that account was ordered for the period of three months. Why ? No explanation, whatsoever, has been offered at the hearing. 8. It is true that initially the rates are fixed on provisional basis. However, the provisional rates can be altered only for a good reason. None has been disclosed. Even at the hearing learned counsel for the respondents have not been able to refer to any material on the record which may give a clue with regard to the reason for reduction of the driage allowance. 9. Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioners in one of the petitions, has pointed out that in the affidavit dated October 16, 2001, filed by the Joint Director, Food & Supplies Department, Punjab, in C.W.P. No. 12901 of 2001, it has been, inter alia, averred that "the denial of 2% driage allowance on paddy for manufacture of rice is not justifiable. In view of moisture content of 18% in paddy, it is justified to allow 2% driage allowance, keeping in view the 14% moisture given in rice." 10. Another fact which deserves notice is that the reduction in driage allowance has been ordered only in case of custom milled rice delivered by the rice shellers to the State Agencies for the Central Pool. It has not been made applicable to the rice procured by the Food Corporation of India. Why this differential treatment ? There is no answer. 11. Before concluding the case, we may notice that the objections have been raised even with regard to the price of gunny bags. However, at the hearing, the counsel have confined the challenge to the reduction of driage allowance only. 12. No other point has been raised. 13. In view of the above, we dispose of these writ petitions with the following directions :- i) The reduction of the driage allowance, as ordered by the Government of India vide its letter dated December 3, 1998, a copy of which has been produced on record as Annexure P8 in C.W.P. No. 833 of 2001, is set aside. In other respects, there has been no challenge. ii) Any orders for recovery on account of reduction in driage allowance shall stand quashed. In other respects, there has been no challenge. ii) Any orders for recovery on account of reduction in driage allowance shall stand quashed. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Petition allowed.