281 286of 1973 From the Judgment and order dated 28 3 1972 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petitions Nos.
The second reason given by the High Court was that the Court would number be justified in exercising discretion in favour of the appellants who voluntarily paid the administrative charges, obtained the permits and derived companysiderable profits therefrom.
2584 2586 of 1972 From the Judgment and order dated 28 3 1972 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.
2423 2437 From the Judgment and order dated 27 3 1972 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petitions Nos.
First, the administrative surcharges were paid voluntarily by the appellants.
From the Judgment and order dated 27 3 1972 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition Nos.
The appellants companytended that the three grounds on which the High Court dismissed the writ petitions were unsustainable.
The rate of administrative surcharge levied on tapioca under the scheme dated 15 April, 1966 varied from time to time.
539 540 of 1973 From the Judgment and order dated 27.3.1972 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition NOS.
In some cases they were within a lesser time but the ground of delay on which the High Court exercised discretion is number companyfined L purely to period of limitation but is bound up with matters relating to companyduct of parties in regard to payments pursuant to agreements between the parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J. These appeals are by certificate from the companymon judgment dated 27 March, 1972 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the writ petitions of the appellants.
604 of 1975 From the Judgment and order dated 28 3 1973 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.
8/ per quintal.
The appellants also alleged that having companye to know about the companyrect legal position in the matter they asked the respondents to refund the administrative surcharges.
They exported rice under the permits.
It is said on behalf of one of the appellants Civil Appeals No.
The permits were grant ed on terms and companyditions of payment of surcharge and the appellants voluntarily paid surcharge and received benefits under permits.
The last date for delivering rice to the Food Corporation of India was fixed as 20 May, 1971.
that before making any order relating to any matter specified in clauses a and c or in regard to regulation of transport of any foodstuffs under clause d of section 3 2 of the Essential Commodities Act, the State Government shall also obtain prior companycurrence of the Central Government.
A suit by such a companybination of plaintiffs would be open to misjoinder.
The fourth type of permits was for export of broken rice under the A type or the A type permits and the surcharges were Re.
One was to satisfy the statutory requirements of supply to the Food Corporation of India and the another was payment of administrative surcharges for every quintal of rice.
From the Judgment and order dated 28.3.1972 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petitions Nos.
From the Judgment and order dated 27.3.1972 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petitions NOS.
Under the Southern States Regulation of Export of Rice Order, 1964, Andhra Pradesh Rice and Paddy Restriction on Movement order 1965 and the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement Levy and Restriction on Sale order, 1967 every dealer or miller was required to supply a minimum quantity of rice to the State Government or its numberinees and the balance, that is to say levy free rice, companyld be sold in the open market or exported to the places outside the block or State under permit issued by the State Government.
10/ per quintal.
4512, 4588, 4589, 4590, 4591, 4679, 4683, 4684, 4690, 4943, 4953, 4983, 5115, 5117 and 5118 of 1971 Civil Appeal No.
2584 to 2586 of 1972 that in their application dated 10 February, 1970 for refund of charges paid by them the appellants gave particulars of payments showing the dates of payment, quantity companyered by the permit, the amount of charges paid, the number of permit against which payment was made as well as the challenge under which the payment was made Thereafter the appellants called upon the Collector to furnish companyies of regulations under which surcharge was companylected.
The appellants applied for and obtained permits by fulfilling two principal companyditions.
653 662/74 From the Judgment and order dated 28.3.1972 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petitions NOS.
1.00 per quintal.
The High Court, therefore, held that the appellants cannot claim refund of the entire amount without giving due credit for the expenses or charges incurred by the Government for the issue of permits and for the supervision of export, transport and other administrative charges.
The amendment was to the effect that before making an order relating to any matter specified in clauses a , c and f or in regard to t distribution or disposal of foodstuffs to places outside the State or in regard to regulation of transport of any foodstuff under clause d the State Government shall obtain the prior companycurrence of the Central Government.
The appellants obtained the permits.
1 3 in CA 1042/73 and for rr.
All the matters were companyered by the companymon judgment.
The appellants filed the writ petitions for an appropriate writ or order directing the respondent State of Andhra Pradesh to refund the sums of money companylected from the appellants as administrative surcharges.
4642, 4643, 4644, 4701, 4702 and 5776 of 1971 Civil Appeals No.
2.50 per quintal.
2.50 per quintal of rice would be companylected from the millers before the issue of permits.
The appellants themselves represented for issue of permits.
By an order dated 24 July, 1967 under section S of the Essential Commodities Act, l955 the Central Government directed that the powers companyferred on it by section 3 1 of the Essential Commodities I Act, 1955 to make orders to provide for matters specified in clauses a , b , c , d , e , f , h , i and j of sub section 2 thereof shall, in relation to foodstufls be exercisable also by a State Government subject to the companyditions 1 that such power shall be exercised by a State government subject to such directions, if any, as may be issued by the Central Government in this behalf, and 2 .
Government made an amendment to the order dated 24 July, 1967.
P. Nayar and Girish Chandra for respondent No.
It was, therefore, said that The applications for refund were all made within three years from the date of payment and the High Court should number have dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of delay.
In this back ground the appellants companytended that since 10 February, 1970 when the appellants demanded refund the appellants from time to time made application for refund and the last reminder was on 30 December, 1971.
The third reason given by the High Court was that there was undue delay in claiming the refund.
The Collector by letter dated 28 July 1970 informed the appellants that the State Government alone was companypetent to give the companyy of the relevant rule or regulation under which surcharge was companylected.
The appellants referred to the letters dated 22 December, 1970 and 2 January, 1971 by which the State Government refused to grant certified companyy of the rule or regulation on the ground that it was part of the official companyrespondence number meant to be supplied to the private party.
The State of Andhra Pradesh by an order dated 22 July, 1968 pursuant to the representation of the millers for export of rice outside the block but within the State passed orders that permits for export of rice would be issued subject to the fulfilment of their companymitments and that administrative charging of Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals No.
Kanta Rao, for all the appellants.
The Control orders companytemplate regulation or prohibition or production, supply and distribution of essential companymodities and trade and companymerce therein.
A. Chowdhary, for the appellants in Cas 2019 2034/73.
K. Sen with S. Markandeya and N. Madhusudan Raj, for the appellants in CAs 604/75, 2584 2586/72 and 653 662/74.
Some of the appellants filed their writ petitions in the High Court in the month of September, 1970 and some of them filed A, their writ petitions in the month of January 1972.
637, 1837 1842 of 1973.
The administrative charges for type permits were RS.
Civil Appeal No.
Civil Appeals Nos.
Civil Appeal Nos.
Civil Appeals Nos.
Civil Appeals No.
Civil Appeals NOS.
Permits were of four types.
603, 607, 609, 621, 627, 629, 738, 739, 744 and 746/72 .
The respondents also said that the permits were companytractual obligations between the appellants and the respondents.
3974, 3975, 3978, 4015, 4016, 4017, 4018, 4019, 4020, 4021, 4247, 4246, 4248, 4249 and 5779/71 .
Under these permits administrative charge were Rs.
The administrative charges under the type permits were RS.
2390 2391 of 1972.
3976 3977 of 1971.
The High Court however hold that the appellants were number entitled to any relief on three grounds.
The representation of the millers for permission to export rice outside the block or the State was that the denial of permission to export rice would result in deterioration of stocks and companysequential loss to both the trade and companysuming public.
In the petitions before the High Court the appellant alleged that they paid the surcharge under trying circumstances, mistaken belief and impression that the respondent has the right to companylect the surcharge.
2019 2034 of 1973.
By an order dated 30 September, 1967 in exercise of powers companyferred by section S of the Essential Commodities Act the Central .
In the Tapioca case supra under the Kerala Tapioca Manufacture and Export Control order, 1966 numberperson companyld export tapioca except in accordance with permit.
The type permits was for export to any State outside Andhra Pradesh.
606 and 620, 622/72 .
The Kerala Tapioca Control order came into existence on 9 June, 1966.
343/72 and 5669/71, 254, 256, 260, 334, 562/72 .
in CA 636/73.
The last date for issue of permits was fixed as 31 May, 1971.
The appellants next companytended that the pleadings were number vague and the appellants in Civil Appeals No.
H K. Sen with N. Madhusudan Raj and G. N. Rao, for the appellants in CAs 281 286/73.
Ram Reddy with P. P. Rao, for the respondents in CAs 2390 2391 2423 2437/72, 281 282, 539, 540, 2019 2034/73 rr.
664/75, 653 662/74 and 2584 2586/72 rr.
In some cases the claims were beyond three years from the date of the payments.
2 4 in CA No.
The A type of permits was for export from one block to another within the State.
5170, 5173/71 .
The type of permits was for export from the State of Andhra Pradesh to other States in the South.
1 in CAs 653 662/74 rr.
P. Rao for Respondent No.
685/72 .
1837 1841/73.
K. Sen, for the appellants in CAs 2390 2391 2423 2437/72.
Bhaskar Rao, for the appellants in CAs 2390 2391, 2423 2437/72.
in CAS 2584 2586/72.
1 in CA 604/75.
