JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, C.J. 1. These appeals witness a challenge to the judgment and order dated 03.03.2012 rendered, amongst others, in O.J.C. Nos. 4808 &4809 of 1997 respectively thereby sustaining the oppugnment of the demand for payment of differential amount for the price of wheat lifted by the respondents/writ petitioners from the depot of Food Corporation of India (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the FCI/Corporation") in terms of the release order issued by its District Office at Cuttack. We have heard Mr. Srikanta Ku. Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation and Mr. Akhil Mohapatra, learned counsel for respondents/writ petitioners. 2. The backdrop of facts in both these appeals is identical and thus the pleaded narrative would be permissibly common. 3. The respondents/writ petitioners are Roller Flour Mills, carrying on business, inter alia, of milling wheat and converting the same to different wheat products like Suji, Maida, Atta and Bran etc. They have obtained milling licence under the Wheat Roller Flour Mills (Licensing & Control) Order, 1957 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Order") framed in exercise of power under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. As per the pleaded averments in the writ petitions, in terms of Clause 10 of the Order in force at the relevant time, the licensing authority or the specified authority, as the case may be, was authorized to issue directions to the licensee with regard, inter alia, to the source from which and the manner in which wheat should be obtained for the purpose of manufacture of wheat products and disposal thereof. Sub-clause (2) of Clause 10 made it imperative on the licensee to carry out the aforesaid direction of the licensing authority/specified authority. Clause 5 of the licence also made it essential for the licensee to abide by the directions of the licensing authority while purchasing wheat and preparing Suji, Maida, Rawa etc. and also with regard to distribution and disposal of the wheat products. In terms of the above empowerment, the licensing authority/specified authority did direct all the Roller Flour Millers of the State that they would have to purchase wheat only from the Government through the agency of the Corporation and not from open market for the purpose of manufacture of wheat products in their mills. In terms of the above empowerment, the licensing authority/specified authority did direct all the Roller Flour Millers of the State that they would have to purchase wheat only from the Government through the agency of the Corporation and not from open market for the purpose of manufacture of wheat products in their mills. The Government of Orissa having decided to distribute the wheat by open sale, did invite applications in the month of January, 1997 indicating, inter alia, that maximum 500 MT wheat can be allotted to per flour Miller. The said notice further disclosed that the applications were to be submitted to the Corporation by 13.01.1997 with 10% EMD for the quantity intended and that the allotment would be finalized by 18.01.1997 after which the prospective buyers could have to deposit the cost of the allotted quantity after adjusting the EMD on or before 31.01.1997. The price for open sale of wheat was fixed as follows: Balasore/Cuttack Berhampur/Bhubaneswar Sambalpur/Titilagarh/jeypore Rourkela Rs.5493 Per MT. Rs.5499 Per MT. Rs.5416 Per MT. Rs.5406 Per MT. 4. In terms of the said notice, taxes were payable extra in addition and it was stipulated that the prices applicable on the date of issue/lifting/delivery would be collected and the deadline of the issue and lifting of allotted quantities of food grains was prescribed to be 10.02.1997. As the applications were to be submitted before the District Manager, FCI, District Office, Cuttack the respondents/writ petitioners applied on 13.01.1997 along with DCR for Rs. 2.9 lakhs drawn in favour of F.C.I. payable at State Bank of India, Cuttack and requested for allotment of 500 MT of wheat for the month of January, 1997 to be lifted from Cuttack depot of the Corporation. Thereafter the Senior Regional Manager, FCI, Regional Office, Bhubaneswar intimated the District Manager, FCI, District Office, Cuttack about the allotment of the above quoted wheat in favour of respondents/writ petitioners. Subsequent thereto, the release orders in favour of the respondents/writ petitioners were issued on 27.1.1997 by this authority to lift 310/210 MT respectively to both the respondents/writ petitioners, which they did on different dates. The respondent/writ petitioner in OJC 4808 of 1997 specifically pleaded that the last date on which it had lifted the wheat was 5.2.1997. Subsequent thereto, the release orders in favour of the respondents/writ petitioners were issued on 27.1.1997 by this authority to lift 310/210 MT respectively to both the respondents/writ petitioners, which they did on different dates. The respondent/writ petitioner in OJC 4808 of 1997 specifically pleaded that the last date on which it had lifted the wheat was 5.2.1997. The respondents/writ petitioners have averred that thereafter they processed it for conversion to wheat products and had sold the same to the costumers at the rates mentioned in the letter dated 18.01.1997. It was thereafter that the appellant/Corporation by its letter dated 4.3.1997 demanded of respondents/writ petitioners an amount of Rs. 1,25,747.41/Rs. 3,95,132.84 as the differential price in view of the enhancement of the wheat price to Rs. 740/- per quintal. Contending that they had lifted the allotted quantity of wheat by paying the price fixed therefor in response to the release orders dated 31.01.1997, whereby the contract between the parties stood concluded, the respondents/writ petitioners having unsuccessfully pleaded with the Corporation sought this Court's intervention by instituting the above writ petitions to annul the demand. 5. The appellant/Corporation in its counter, while questioning the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground of non impleadment of Ministry of Food, Government of India, New Delhi, asserted that the demand was in terms of the agreed clauses in the circular/notice inviting applications for allotment as well as the communication dated 18.01.1997 fixing the price of wheat. They pleaded that prior to 4.2.1997, the price of wheat per MT was fixed by the Central Government at Rs. 5493/- for Cuttack and the same was revised with effect from that date i.e. 4.2.1997 by a Press Note dated 4.2.1997 issued by the Government of India. According to them, the factum of the revision of this rate was conveyed by the headquarters of the Corporation to all its zonal and regional offices so much so that it was received by the office of the District Manager, FCI, Cuttack on 6.2.1997. The Corporation further averred that the information with regard to revision of price was intimated to the food storage depot and Civil Supply Officers for their information. The Corporation further averred that the information with regard to revision of price was intimated to the food storage depot and Civil Supply Officers for their information. According to the Corporation, this was well known to the respondents/writ petitioners and further in view of the condition that the price as applicable on the date of issue/lifting/delivery of the stock to the dealers would be payable, their (respondents/writ petitioners') plea to the contrary was untenable. 6. Reference, in particular, to Clause-8 of the letter dated 18.01.1997 was made and the Corporation pleaded that vis-a-vis the stock lifted on or after 4.2.1997 i.e. subsequent to the revision of price, the millers were required to pay the differential amount. It was also mentioned that on revision, the price of wheat per MT was enhanced to Rs. 7,400/-. In endorsement to the claim, the Corporation not only insisted that the respondents/writ petitioners being parties to similar transactions from much before were well aware of such covenant, it also referred to a clause in the release order to the effect that price prevailing on the physical delivery would be payable in respect of the stock delivered irrespective of the date on which the order was issued or received by the parties. That by the notice dated 4.3.1997, the differential price of wheat at the enhanced rate was demanded of the respondents/writ petitioners vis-a-vis the quantity lifted after the revision was effected was underlined. 7. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment and order, however, upheld the assailment on the ground that the entire amount having been paid by the respondents/writ petitioners towards the price of wheat whereafter the delivery orders were issued, the demand for differential price was not sustainable in absence of any clause in the delivery/release orders to the effect that the amount collected would be subject to revision for the reasons whatsoever. The learned Single Judge was of the view that in terms of Section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as pursuant to the release/delivery orders the goods were delivered to the respondents/writ petitioners, property therein stood transferred to them. Adverting to Section 23(2) of the Act, it was concluded that the appellant/Corporation was deemed to have unconditionally appropriated the goods to the contract. Adverting to Section 23(2) of the Act, it was concluded that the appellant/Corporation was deemed to have unconditionally appropriated the goods to the contract. It was observed that not only the appellant/Corporation had directed the respondents/writ petitioners to lift the quantity of wheat mentioned in the release orders, but also stipulated the period within which delivery of the same was to be completed failing which storage charges would be collected. It was concluded thus that as the respondents/writ petitioners had lifted the goods within the stipulated period without being subjected to any condition, the transaction stood completed before the additional demand had been raised. 8. Mr. S.K. Nayak has emphatically argued with reference to the notice for open sale, letter dated 18.1.1997 and Clause 14 of the release order that it being undeniably apparent there from that the price of wheat as applicable on the date of physical delivery of the stock irrespective of the date of delivery of release order was payable, the demand for differential price was wholly in terms of the contract and thus the finding to the contrary is erroneous. As the respondents/writ petitioners had taken physical delivery of the stock of wheat allotted to them, after the revision in the price thereof had been effected by the Central Government, they were obliged under the contract to pay the differential amount, he urged. According to Mr. Nayak, respondents/writ petitioners having subjected themselves to the specific stipulation under the contract, they were estopped from questioning the same and avoid their liability in terms thereof. The learned counsel urged that it being apparent from the condition that the price prevailing on the date of physical delivery of the stock would be payable by the buyer, the property or the goods was not intended to be passed, unless the differential amount payable was disbursed. According to Mr. Nayak, in terms of Section 19 of the Act the differential price is payable by the respondents/writ petitioners and therefore reference to Section 23(2) of the Act in the impugned judgment and order is wholly out of place. Without prejudice to the above, Mr. Nayak, insisted as well that the writ proceedings instituted to wriggle out of a contractual obligation, being impermissible in law ought to have been dismissed in limine. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in Kulchhinder Singh & ors. Vs. Without prejudice to the above, Mr. Nayak, insisted as well that the writ proceedings instituted to wriggle out of a contractual obligation, being impermissible in law ought to have been dismissed in limine. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in Kulchhinder Singh & ors. Vs. Hardayal Singh Brar & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 2216 . 9. Per contra, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners has maintained that the appellant/Corporation having permitted them to lift their allotted quota of wheat on payment of the price payable during the relevant time without any reservation, the demand for differential price is ex-facie illegal. As the allotted quantity of wheat had been delivered to the respondents/writ petitioners only on payment of the price thereof, it was clearly intended by the appellant/Corporation that the property therein had passed to them on delivery of the goods and thus the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in holding so with reference to Sections 19, 20 and 23 of the Act. While admitting that the goods had been lifted on and after 4.2.1997 and that the enhancement in the price of wheat had been effected from 4.2.1997, the learned counsel insisted that as the appellant/Corporation did not, at any point of time, draw the attention of the respondents/writ petitioners to the revision of price the impugned demand is patently unauthorised and impermissible in law. He argued further that as the transaction is being one of cash sale, where under the commodity has been sold with physical delivery thereof on receipt of cash price, no further demand in connection there with is allowable. 10. We have scrutinized the pleaded facts and the documents on records and have also analyzed the rival arguments. The materials on records demonstrate that the respondents/writ petitioners had lifted the stock of their wheat during the period beyond 4.2.1997. It is also not disputed that the revision in price of wheat had been made on and from 4.2.1997. The Press Note dated 4.2.1997 is a clear indicator to the effect that thereby the price of the open sale wheat for Cuttack had been enhanced to Rs. 7,400/- per MT. On the very same date by a fax message, this decision was communicated to the concerned Offices of the appellant/Corporation. Noticeably, according to the FCI, this intimation reached the Cuttack Office/depot on 6.2.1997. 7,400/- per MT. On the very same date by a fax message, this decision was communicated to the concerned Offices of the appellant/Corporation. Noticeably, according to the FCI, this intimation reached the Cuttack Office/depot on 6.2.1997. That the revision was in supersession of the earlier price and enforceable with immediate effect is also apparent from the fax message dated 4.2.1997. 11. A plain perusal of the notice for Open Sale of wheat authenticates that though the price for the commodity mentioned had been fixed, it was subject to the rider that the price applicable on the date of issue/lifting/delivery would be payable. Clause-8 of the letter dated 18.01.1997 setting out the conditions in for allotment/release of wheat under OMSSD during January, 1997 being formidably relevant is quoted herein below: "8. The price of wheat for Open Sale will be as per revised enhanced rate as communicated vide FCI Hqrs. Fax No. J.I(1)/96-PY/S.III, dt. 18.9.1996 without any change till further orders. However the prices as applicable on the date of issue/lifting/delivery must be collected as per procedure in vogue. Rate fixed by Govt. of India/FCI Hqrs. w.e.f. 18.9.1996 and applicable to Centres of Orissa are as under:- Cuttack Rs.5493/- Per MT. Bhubaneswar Rs.5499/- Raipur Rs.5416/- Ranchi Rs.5406/- This clause underlined as well that the prices would be as applicable on the date of issue/lifting/delivery as per procedure indicated. This indisputably is notwithstanding the prices fixed for wheat at the different stations as mentioned therein. This letter incidentally also fixed the rates for wheat products. In the release orders dated 31.01.1997 issued by the FCI, District Office, Cuttack in favour of the respondents/writ petitioners, against Clause 14 it mentioned PTO and on the reverse page thereof the following was printed: "Prices prevailing on the date of physical delivery will be payable for the stock covered by this delivery order/release orders by the purchaser irrespective of the date of issue of this order of receipt of payment etc. The purchaser will be entitled to get delivery of the stocks only after payment of the difference in prices in case of enhancement before physical delivery. This is a condition of sale." 12. The above enjoinment thus was construed to be an integral part of the release order and has been appended as Annexure-C to the counter filed by the appellant/Corporation in the writ proceedings. This is a condition of sale." 12. The above enjoinment thus was construed to be an integral part of the release order and has been appended as Annexure-C to the counter filed by the appellant/Corporation in the writ proceedings. To complete the factual narration bearing on the adjudication of the issues, suffice it to refer to letter dated 7.2.1997 (Annexure-E to the counter of the Corporation) addressed by the Senior Regional Manager, FCI to the District Manager, FCI of Cuttack/Bhubaneswar/Balasore etc. fixing the price of Open Sale of wheat for the month of February, 1997. The contents of Clause -9 thereof is quoted herein below: "9. The price of wheat for Open Sale will be as per revised enhanced rate as communicated vide FCI Hqrs. Fax No. J.1(1)/96-PY/S.III, dt. 04.02.1997 without any change till further orders. However, the prices as applicable on the date of issue/lifting/delivery must be collected as per procedure in vogue. Rate fixed by Govt. of India/FCI Hqrs. w.e.f. 04.02.1997 and applicable to Centres of Orissa are as under:- Cuttack - Rs. 7,400/- per MT.(enhanced w.e.f. 4.2.1997) Bhubaneswar - Rs. 7,400/- per MT. 13. A conjoint reading of these documents, in our considered opinion would testify without any manner of doubt that the parties were ad idem that the price of wheat payable on the date of physical delivery thereof would have to be paid. Such an intention thus was the essence of contract. Significantly, the respondents/writ petitioners did not refute the correctness of the averments in the pleadings of the Corporation by filing a rejoinder. Moreover, the assertions of the appellant/Corporation are borne out from contemporaneous official records and there being no overwhelming materials to the contrary, there is no reason to doubt the genuineness thereof. Clause-14 of the release order sets at rest, the speculation if any, about the price payable. The respondents/writ petitioners being consciously a party to the contract, predicating that the price prevailing on the date of physical delivery would be payable, which is clear from the delivery/release order, in our estimate, in the facts and circumstances of the case, they (respondents/writ petitioners) cannot in law be relieved of the liability to pay the differential amount of price for stock lifted after the revision of price w.e.f. 4.2.1997. That the enhanced price of wheat was fixed at Rs. 7,400/- per MT with effect from 4.2.1997 is not disputed. 14. That the enhanced price of wheat was fixed at Rs. 7,400/- per MT with effect from 4.2.1997 is not disputed. 14. Section 19 of the Act for ready reference is quoted herein below: "19. Property passes when intended to pass. - (1) Where there is a contract for the sale of specific or ascertained goods the property in them is transferred to the buyer at such time as the parties to the contract intend it to be transferred. (2) For the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the parties regard shall be had to the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case. (3) Unless a different intention appears, the rules contained in Section 20 to 24 are 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" 15. The transfer of property in a contract for sale of specific or ascertained goods in favour of the buyer eventuates only at such time as the parties under the contract intend it to be transferred. The intention of both the parties, therefore, is the decisive determinant for conveyance of the property in the goods, the subject matter of contract for sale. Section19(2) predicates that the terms of contract and conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case would be relevant to ascertain the intention of the parties. Section 19 (3) refers to Sections 20 to 24 for ascertaining the intention of the parties as to the time at which the property in the goods is to pass to the buyer unless a different intention appears. 16. The rules contained in Sections 20 to 24 thus would have a determinative bearing only in absence of any different intention of the parties to the contrary as decipherable in the fact situation involved. 17. Having regard to the unequivocal and categorical stipulations in the contract as well as in the release/delivery orders that the prices prevailing on the date of physical delivery would be payable, the deeming provision contained under Section 23(2) of the Act, in our comprehension, cannot come to the rescue of the respondents/writ petitioners. Further, the respondents/writ petitioners, having subjected themselves to the conditions governing the transaction, those are binding on them without any reservation. Further, the respondents/writ petitioners, having subjected themselves to the conditions governing the transaction, those are binding on them without any reservation. It being the uncontroverted case of the appellant/Corporation that the intimation about the revision of price with effect from 4.2.1997 had been received by its District Office at Cuttack on 6.2.1997, the benefit of Section 23(2) cannot be extended in the singular facts and circumstances of the case to the respondents/writ petitioners. Only because the Corporation being unaware of the revised price had permitted the respondents/writ petitioners to take delivery of their commodity at the old price cannot act as estoppel against it or amount to waiver of its claim for the differential amount otherwise payable. On an appraisal of the factual and legal aspects, we are thus of the considered opinion that the impugned demand of the appellant/Corporation for differential price qua the respondents/writ petitioners cannot be repudiated to be in repugnance of Sections 19 and23 of the Act. We thus find ourselves in respectful disagreement with the learned Single Judge on this count. The appeals thus succeed and are allowed. The impugned judgment and order, so far as it relates to the respondents/writ petitioners, is set aside.