JUDGMENT : Heard Md. M.H. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the Appellant. Also heard Mr. S.K. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2005, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagaon in Title Appeal No. 18/2004 affirming the judgment and decree dated 09.02.2004, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Nagaon in Title Suit No. 48/2000. 3. The appellant, Assam State Co-operative Marketing and Consumers Federation Ltd., a Co-operative Institution registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1949 filed a suit against the Food Corporation of India and its functionaries praying for a declaration that Office Memorandum No. S&S/DIF/Cost/97-2000 dated 02.05.2000 is illegal and inoperative, permanent injunction restraining the defendants from recovering the differential cost as mentioned in the aforesaid Memorandum and not to give effect to the Memorandum No. S&S/Dif.Cost/97-98 dated 19.05.2000. 4. The case set out in the plaint is that the plaintiff deals in procurement and distribution of public distribution system (PDS) items. As per practice, on the basis of allotment order, the Deputy Commissioner (F&S), Nagaon allots to the plaintiff as well as other allottees quantities of rice, both under APL and BPL categories. In terms of an allotment order dated 16.03.2000 for the month of March, 2000, the plaintiff lifted 500 quintals of APL rice on 27.03.2000 from the respondent No. 3 by depositing the value @ Rs. 905/- per quintal amounting to Rs. 4,52,500/-. Thereafter, the plaintiff distributed the entire quantity to various co-operative societies and fair-price shops within 31.03.2000 at the price fixed by the Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Nagaon. 5. When the plaintiff went to deposit the value for the quota of rice for the month of June, 2000 as per allotment, the defendant No. 3 refused to accept the amount and directed the plaintiff to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,37,500/-, which is the differential amount due for the month of March, 2000 because of enhancement of price of rice by the Central Government, which was effective from 01.04.2000. In this connection, the defendant No. 3 had issued a Memo No. S&S/DIF-Cost/97-98 dated 19.05.2000, challenged in the suit, requesting the Deputy Commissioner to direct different allottees including the plaintiff to deposit the differential amount within June, 2000, failing which, it was indicated that defendants shall adjust the same from future deposit. 6. In this connection, the defendant No. 3 had issued a Memo No. S&S/DIF-Cost/97-98 dated 19.05.2000, challenged in the suit, requesting the Deputy Commissioner to direct different allottees including the plaintiff to deposit the differential amount within June, 2000, failing which, it was indicated that defendants shall adjust the same from future deposit. 6. A written statement was filed by the defendants justifying the Memo No. S&S/DIF-Cost/97-98 dated 19.05.2000 and the demand of differential amount of Rs. 1,37,500/-. In support of the issuance of the Memo No. S&S/DIF-Cost/97-98 dated 19.05.2000, the defendants relied on a Circular No. 200(1)/90-FC A/C dated 30.03.1993. 7. The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff also met similar fate. 8. The second appeal was admitted to be heard by an order dated 13.04.2005 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether learned court below erred in law in deciding that the respondents/defendants are entitled to realize the differential value of the food grains from the plaintiff the sale of which was complete prior to the date of enhancement of the price entitling them to realize the differential value.” 9. The letter dated 30.03.1993 was exhibited by the defendants as Exhibit – C and the letter dated 19.05.2000 was exhibited as Exhibit – G. A letter dated 02.05.2000 issued by the defendant No. 3 to the Deputy Commissioner (F&S), Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Sankardev Nagar and the Officer on Special Duty, KAAC/Br. Secretariat requesting the aforesaid authorities to deposit the required differential cost for the period 25.03.2000 to 31.03.2000 showing allotteewise issue of food grains was exhibited as Exhibit – F. It is to be noticed that vide Exhibit – C, addressed to all the Food Secretaries of the State Governments and Union Territory Administrations, the change in procedure for recovery of the differential cost from the States and the Union Territories on revision of central issue prices of food grains for distribution under the PDS and ITDP, etc. was informed. was informed. In the said Circular, Exhibit – C, it was stated that the release orders issued by the FCI to the States/Union Territories and/or their nominees upto 7 days prior to date of revision of central issue prices would be treated as the stock in pipe line on which the State Governments/Union Territory Administrations and/or their nominees/agencies would be required to pay the differential value between the old and the revised price within two months following the revision of the issue prices. It was also informed that failure to do so will result in stoppage of the issue of the further stocks of grains by FCI from June, 1993 or issue of reduced quantity after adjustment of the differential cost recoverable. 10. It will be relevant to extract Exhibit – F in its entirety, which is as under: “THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA DISTRICT OFFICE : NAGAON No. S&S/DIF-COST/97-2000 Dated:- 2.5.2000 To, 1. The Deputy Commissioner (F&S), Nagaon, Morigaon. 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Sankardev Nagar, Hojai. 3. The Officer on Spl. Duty, KAAC/ Secretariat, P.O. Hamren. Sub:- REQUEST TO DEPOSIT THE DIFFERENTIAL COST OF FOODGRAINS ISSUED THROUGH RELEASE ORDERS FROM FCI PRIOR TO 7 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF ENHANCEMENT OF CENTRAL ISSUE PRICE W.E.F. 1.4.2000. Ref:- GOI’s letter No. 200(1)/90-FC.A/C dtd. 30.3.93. Sir, Consequent upon enhancement of central issue price of foodgrains under T.D.P.S. by GOI. w.e.f. 1.4.2000 value of foodgrains were revised by this end from the State Govt. allottees at the revised prices. Now, FCI, Head quarter, New Delhi as per instruction of GOI’s circular as referred above, has instructed this end to treat the stocks of foodgrains issued by FCI, through release orders to the State Govt. allottees up to 7 days prior to the date of revision of CIP as stocks in pipe line on which the State Govt. nominees/agents are required to deposit the differential cost between old and revised new prices (w.e.f. 25.3.2000) to 31.3.2000. I am enclosing herewith a detailed statement showing allotteewise issue of foodgrains both under APL and BPL allotment to the nominees under your jurisdiction against pipe line stocks w.e.f. 25.3.2000 to 31.3.2000 with request to deposit the required differential cost as shown in the enclosed statement at the earliest otherwise this office has no other alternative but to adjust the differential cost from any future deposit made by the allottees up to 31.5.2000. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Illegible DISTRICT MANAGER Copy to:- 1. The Sr. Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office Guwahati – 7 for favour of information please. 2. The Joint Manager (F&A), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office Guwahati – 7 for favour of information please. Sd/- Illegible DISTRICT MANAGER” 11. It will also be relevant to extract Exhibit – G in its entirety. It runs as follows: “THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA DISTRICT OFFICE : NAGAON No. S&S/Dif.Cost/97-98 Dated:- 19.5.2000 To, The Deputy Commissioner (F&S), Nagaon. Sub:- DEPOSITION OF DIFFERENTIAL COST CONSEQUENT UPON ENHANCEMENT OF CENTRAL ISSUE PRICE AS ON 01.06.97 AND 1.4.2000. Ref:- This office letter of even No. dtd. 23.10.97 and 2.5.2000. Sir, With reference to the letters mentioned above wherein it was requested to deposit the differential cost of foodgrains consequent upon enhancement of CIP as on 1.6.97 and 23.10.97, it is further to inform you that, an amount of 4,88,924.64 pertaining to the period of 1.6.97 against wheat stocks and Rs. 1,09,000.00 and Rs. 4,12,500/- respectively pertaining to the period of 1.4.2000 against wheat and rice stocks are still to be deposited from your end. As the FCI higher authority is pressing hard and instructed this end to recover the same immediately, it is once again requested to do the needful towards deposition of the entire differential cost at an early date. Otherwise this office has no other alternative but to adjust the same from any future deposits made to this office by any allottees from June 2000 till recoveries are completed. However the copies of allotteewise differential cost for the referred period are enclosed here for your ready reference. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Illegible 19/5 DISTRICT MANAGER Copy to:- 1. The Sr. Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office Guwahati – 7 for favour of information. Sd/- Illegible 19/5 DISTRICT MANAGER” 12. A perusal of letter dated 02.05.2000, Exhibit – F, issued by the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Nagaon goes to show that there was enhancement of central issue price of food grains w.e.f. 01.04.2000 and in the context thereof, on the basis of the circular dated 30.03.1993, Exhibit – C, differential cost against pipe line stock with effect from 25.03.2000 to 31.03.2000 was directed to be paid, which in respect of the plaintiff, came to Rs. 1,37,500/-. 13. 1,37,500/-. 13. The aforesaid circular dated 30.03.1993 was subject matter of consideration in Assam Roller Flour Mills Association Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in (2004) 1 GLR 223. The Division Bench of this Court held that the moment purchasers purchase the property with their own money, they become owner of the property at the price fixed by the Government at that time and that price cannot be increased or decreased by the Government by issuing orders fixing price from retrospective date. Accordingly, the notification dated 30.03.1993 along with consequential circulars issued by various authorities were set aside. 14. A perusal of the letter dated 02.05.2000, Exhibit – F would go to show that the said letter was issued on the strength of a circular that was already quashed by the Division Bench of this Court. There is no dispute that the plaintiff purchased rice on 27.03.2000, before the issuance of the notification dated 01.04.2000 and therefore, this case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in Assam Roller Flour Mills Association (supra). In Exhibit – G, there is a reference to the letter dated 02.05.2000, Exhibit – F. 15. Mr. S.K. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondents has, however, submitted that in Tinsukia Whole Sale Consumers Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors., in R.F.A. No. 40/2008, by a judgment dated 01.06.2015, this Court had remanded the case on similar circumstances to the learned Trial Court to enable the plaintiff to establish that the plaintiff had distributed the allotted goods before the revision price came into effect. He has, however, very fairly submitted that though the Division Bench judgment in Assam Roller Flour Mills Association (supra) was referred to, the fact that the Circular dated 30.03.1993 was set aside was not noticed. 16. P.W. 1, who was working as a Manager of plaintiff, deposed that within 31.03.2000, the rice allotted for the month of March, 2000 was distributed to various co-operative societies and fair-price shops. There was no cross-examination on this aspect though otherwise the P.W. 1 was cross-examined. There is not even a suggestion that allotted rice was not distributed before 31.03.2000. He asserted, in his cross-examination, that 500 quintal was not pipe line stock. Therefore, the plaintiff had even otherwise established that rice allotted for the month of March, 2000 was distributed before 31.03.2000. There is not even a suggestion that allotted rice was not distributed before 31.03.2000. He asserted, in his cross-examination, that 500 quintal was not pipe line stock. Therefore, the plaintiff had even otherwise established that rice allotted for the month of March, 2000 was distributed before 31.03.2000. On this count, the judgment in Tinsukia Whole Sale Consumers Cooperative Society Ltd. (supra) is clearly distinguishable. 17. Be that as it may, when the Division Bench had set aside the notification dated 30.03.1993, which was the basis for issuance of the impugned Memorandum No. S&S/DIF-COST/97-2000 dated 02.05.2000 and Memorandum No. S&S/Dif.Cost/97-98 dated 19.05.2000, the appeal has to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Court below are set aside. 18. Plaintiff’s suit is decreed. No cost.