Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1093 (RAJ)

Himmat Singh Shekhawat v. State of Rajasthan

2015-05-18

SANGEET LODHA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of notification (SO No.185) dated 7.2.14 issued by the State Government, whereby in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Rajasthan Goods (Control of Production, Supply, Distribution and Trade and Commerce) Act, 2014 (for short 'the Act of 2014'), 'Bajri' has been declared to be the goods to which the provisions of the Act of 2014 shall apply. That apart, the petitioner has challenged order dated 11.2.14 issued by the District Collector, Jodhpur in exercise of powers conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act of 2014, specifying the maximum sale price of 'Bajri' at pit mouth without loading charges and with loading charges @ Rs.65/- and Rs.105/-per tone respectively, for tehsil-Bilara. 2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner does not want to press the writ petition so far as it relates to challenge to the notification (SO No.185) dated 7.2.14 issued by the State Government. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner confines his challenge only to the extent of legality of order dated 11.2.14 (Annexure-14) issued by the District Collector, Jodhpur, determining the maximum sale price of the 'Bajri' as modified vide notification dated 9.10.14 (Annexure-R/3). In this view of the matter, the writ petition so far as it relates to challenge to the notification (SO No.185) dated 7.2.14 is dismissed as not pressed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in exercise of the power conferred under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act of 2014, the District Collector has fixed the maximum sale price of Bajri at pit mouth with loading charges @ Rs.105/- per tone, which was revised vide order dated 9.10.14 in compliance of the order dated 11.8.14 passed by the Jaipur Bench of this court in D.B.C.Writ Petition No.2674/14 to Rs.119/- per tone, however, the price with loading charges under the said provision for Sawai Madhopur has been fixed at Rs.170/- per tone vide order dated 11.2.14 (Annexure 17) which stands revised to Rs.265/- for Sawai Madhopur and Rs.225/- for various other locations in the district Sawai Madhopur. That apart, the grievance raised by the petitioner is that quantum of material produced by the petitioner in the preceding year and the amount of expenses actually incurred by the petitioner has not been taken into consideration while determining of the maximum sale price. 4. It is to be noticed that vide order dated 17.4.15 passed by this Court, the respondent-State was directed to produce the break up which lead to determination of price @ Rs.119/- per tone for Bilara vide order dated 9.10.14 (Annexure 3) and Rs.170/- vide order dated 11.2.14 (Annexure 17) for Sawai Madhopur. 5. Pursuant to the directions issued by this court as aforesaid, the respondents have produced the break up which lead to determination of the maximum sale price of Bajri for different location including Bilara and Sawai Madhopur. 6. It is pertinent to note that for various locations in Sawai Madhopur District, vide order dated 20.10.14, the maximum sale price at the pit mouth with loading charges and without loading charges has been revised to Rs.185/- and Rs.225/- per tone respectively, whereas, the maximum sale price for location Sawai Madhopur has been fixed at Rs.185/- and 265/- respectively. The maximum sale price in the local market has been fixed for Sawai Madhopur @ Rs.300/- per tone and for other locations in the district Sawai Madhopur @ Rs.250/- per tone. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that as per the break up of the maximum sale price of Bajri fixed for Bilara @ Rs.105/- per tone vide order dated 11.2.14, the rate of royalty has been taken to be Rs.29/- whereas, for other locations, the rate of royalty has been taken into consideration as Rs.30/- Learned counsel submitted that while determining the maximum sale price, the average production of Bajri to be taken into consideration has been determined by the District Collector on the basis of base year 2012-13 whereas, now the figures of quantum of production in the preceding year i.e. year 2014-15 are available and therefore, if the production has gone up, the pit mouth price of Bajri shall go down proportionately but then, if the production has gone down, the pit mouth price of Bajri is bound to go up proportionately and therefore, the respondents are under an obligation to re-determine the maximum sale price of Bajri for the location Bilara. Learned counsel submitted that while determining the maximum sale price vide order dated 11.2.14, as per the break up given 'other expenses per tone' were determined by the Collector @ Rs.8.15 and as per order dated 9.10.14, the amount of other expenses has been determined at Rs.13.15, whereas the expenditure incurred by the petitioner as reflected in the details furnished vide Annexure 16, is much higher. Learned counsel submitted that as per clause (ii) of Order (SO No.186) dated 7.2.14 issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 6 of the Act of 2014, the Collector is under an obligation to have regard to the cost of manufacturing, production, transportation, storage etc. of the goods and tax and other statutory levies paid or payable thereon and securing a reasonable return on the capital employed in the business by the trader and such price determined may be reviewed from time to time having regard to any material change in the above and therefore, the Collector and District Magistrate is under an obligation to review the maximum sale price determined, taking into consideration the production of the preceding year and other relevant aspects. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petition may be disposed of with the direction to the Collector and District Magistrate, Jodhpur to review the sale price determined for the location Bilara vide order dated 11.2.14 as revised vide order dated 9.10.14. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the maximum sale price for the location Bilara already stands revised vide order dated 9.10.14 taking into consideration all relevant aspects as directed by a Bench of this court at Jaipur vide order dated 9.10.14. However, learned AAG fairly submitted that as per the para meters laid down for the determination of tentative pit mouth price based upon the production figure of Bajri of the year 2012-13, has to be revised if the production goes up or down. Learned AAG fairly submitted that if any representation is made by the petitioner in this regard for review of the maximum sale price determined, the same shall be considered by the Collector and District Magistrate in accordance with law. 9. Learned AAG fairly submitted that if any representation is made by the petitioner in this regard for review of the maximum sale price determined, the same shall be considered by the Collector and District Magistrate in accordance with law. 9. Indisputably, as per clause (ii) of Order (SO No.186) dated 7.2.14 issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 6 of the Act of 2014, has laid down conditions for the power exercisable by the Collector and District Magistrate of the District in relation to the area of his jurisdiction to which the Act of 2014 applies and as per clause (ii) of the said order by fixing the price under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act of 2014, the Collector is under an obligation to have regard to the cost of manufacturing, production, transportation, storage etc. of the goods and tax and other statutory levies paid or payable thereon and securing a reasonable return on the capital employed in the business by the trader and such price determined may be reviewed from time to time and therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of present case, where the production figure of 2014-15 are available and there exists some apparent discrepancy regarding the amount determined under the various heads for different locations, taken into consideration while determining the maximum sale price in respect whereof the grievance is raised by the petitioner, this court considered it appropriate to direct the District Collector to review the rates determined, taking into consideration all the relevant aspects of the matter as per clause (ii) of Order (SO No.186) dated 7.2.14 issued by the State Government, regulating the exercise of the power by the Collector and District Magistrate while fixing the price under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act of 2014, and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the Collector and District Magistrate, Jodhpur to reconsider the maximum sale price of Bajri fixed for the location Bilara, vide order dated 11.2.14, as revised vide order dated 9.10.14, taking into consideration the conditions incorporated for exercise of the power vide order (SO No.186) dated 7.2.14 issued by the State Government, and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner shall appear before the Collector and District Magistrate, Jodhpur on 25.5.14 and make his submissions justifying the review of the rates as claimed. The Collector and District Magistrate, Jodhpur is directed to reconsider and determine the maximum sale price of Bajri for the location Bilara within a period of two weeks thereafter. No order as to costs. Petition Disposed of.