PETITIONER:
SRI VIJAYLAKSHMI RICE MILLS, NEW CONTRACTORS COMPANY ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DATE OF JUDGMENT22/03/1976
BENCH:
SINGH, JASWANT
BENCH:
SINGH, JASWANT
RAY, A.N. (CJ)
BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH
CITATION:
1976 AIR 1471 1976 SCR (3) 775
1976 SCC (3) 37
ACT:
Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control (3rd Amendment)
order 1964, clause 2-Whether retrospectivity of substitution
inferred in absence of express provision.
HEADNOTE:
Under s. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955, the
respondent passed the Andhra Pradesh Procurement (Levy)
order 1959, requiring every miller and dealer of rice
(including the appellants) to sell to the respondent certain
specified varieties and quantities of rice at controlled
price on requisition being served on him. Clause 2(a) of the
order defined "controlled price" as the maximum price fixed
by the Central Government from time to time under s. 3 of
the Act for the sale of rice. On December 19, 1963, the
Central Government Passed the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price
Control order 1963, fixing the maximum price of akkulu rice
at Rs. 46.89 per quintal. The appellants sold several
quantities of akkulu rice to the respondent from January 26,
1964, to February 21, 1964, and were paid at the controlled
rate. On March 23, 1964 the Central Government issued the
Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control (3rd amendment) order
1964, and substituted Rs. 52.28 for Rs. 46.89 as the maximum
price per quintal, of akkulu rice. The appellant's claim for
the benefit of the enhanced price for the earlier sales was
rejected by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The appellants
succeeded before the Subordinate Judge, Machilipatnam in
their suits for recovery of the difference between the two
controlled prices but lost before the High Court, in appeals
preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh. It was contended
before this Court that the prices fixed by the Government
are for the entire season, and the appellants are entitled
payment at the amended rates, regardless of the dates when
the supplies were made, and that the word "substitute"
infers retrospective effect.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court.
^
HELD: In the absence of express words or appropriate
language from which retrospectivity may be inferred, a
notification takes effect from the date it is issued and not
from any prior date. Statutes should not be construed so as
to create new disabilities or obligations or impose new
duties in respect of transactions which were complete at the
time the Amending Act came into force. [778B-C]
(2) The property in the goods having passed to the
Government of Andhra Pradesh on the dates the supplies the
made, the appellants had to be paid only at the controlled
prices obtaining on the dates the sales were effects and not
at the increased price which came into operation
subsequently.[778-D]
K. Appayya Shanbhague & Co. v. The State of Mysore and
Anr. (Unreported decision S.C. dated 20-4-1962); The Union
of India. represented by the Secretary Ministry of Food &
Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi v. Kanuri
Damodariah & Co. Alluri Venkatanarasiah (1968) 1 An. W.K. 81
and Mani Gopal Mitra v. The State of Bihar (1969) 2 S.C.R.
411, followed.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 805,
806 and 972-977 of 1973
From the judgment and decree dated the 8th June 1971
and 23rd November 1971 respectively of the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Appeal Suit Nos. 766 of 1968,
18 of 1969, 779, 780, 782 to 785 of 1968, respectively.
776
F. S. Nariman, J. V. K. Gurunathan, T. V. Narasimhan
Murty and A. Subha Rao, for the appellants.
P. Ram Reddy and P. P. Rao, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JASWANT SINGH, J. This batch of Appeals Nos. 805, 806
and 972 to 977 of 1973 by certificate from the judgments and
decrees of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Appeals Nos.
766 of 1968, 18 of 1969, 779 of 1968, 780 of 1968, 782 of
1968, 783 of 1971, 784 of 1968 and 785 of 1968 raise a
simple but an interesting question namely, whether for the
supplies of rice made by the appellants in January and
February, 1964, they are to be paid price according to the
rate specified in the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control
(Third Amendment) order, 1964 dated March 23, 1964 or
according to the rate specified in the Rice (Andhra Pradesh)
Price Control order as it stood in 1963. The question arises
in the following circumstances:
The appellants are millers and carry on the business of
paddy and rice in the State of Andhra Pradesh. On July 31,
1959, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of the
powers conferred on him by section 3 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 (Central Act X of 1955) hereinafter
referred to as `the Act’ made an order called the Andhra
Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) order, 1959 clause 3 of the
order required every dealer and every miller to sell to the
State Government on requisition served on him by the
requisitioning authority at the controlled price (a) 40
percent of the quantity of rice held in stock by him at the
commencement of the order and (b) 40 percent of the total
quantity of rice purchased by him every day beginning with
the commencement of the order. Clause 2(a) of the order
defined “controlled price” as meaning the maximum price
fixed under section 3 of the Act for the sale of rice by the
Central Government from time to time (emphasis supplied). On
December 19, 1963, the Central Government in exercise of the
power conferred on it by section 3 of the Act made an order
called the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control order, 1963,
which extended to the districts of Krishna, West Godavari,
East Godavari, Guntur, Nizamabad, Warangal and Nellore in
the State of Andhra Pradesh. Clause (2) of the order
provided that the maximum prices at which the varieties of
rice specified in column (1) of the Schedule to that order
were to be sold in wholesale quantities would be as
specified in the corresponding entries in column (2) of the
said Schedule. The said Schedule inter alia provided that
Akkulu rice would be sold at Rs. 46.89 per quintal. In
compliance with the requisitions served on them by the
requisitioning authority of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the
appellants sold various quantities of that variety of rice
to the Government of that State from January 26, 1964, to
February 21, 1964, and were paid at the aforesaid rate of
Rs. 46.89 per quintal. By means of the Rice (Andhra Pradesh)
Price Control (Second Amendment) order, 1964, dated March
20, 1964, the Central Government amended sub clause (1) of
clause 2 of the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control order,
1963 and ordained that in the said sub-clause for the words
“the Schedule’, the words and figures schedule I shall be
substituted. on
777
March 23, 1964, the Central Government issued the Rice
(Andhra Pradesh) Price Control (Third Amendment) order,
1964. Clause 2 of the order ran thus:-
2. In the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control
order, 1963, in Schedule I, for the varieties of rice
and the maximum prices thereafter, the following shall
be substituted namely:-
____________________________________________________________
Varieties or rice maximum
price
per quintal.
____________________________________________________________
1. Districts other than Nellore
.. .. .. ..
Akulu .. .. .. 52-25 .. .. .. ..
____________________________________________________________
On the issue of this order, the appellants made
representations to the Government of Andhra Pradesh
requesting that for the aforesaid supplies of Akkulu rice
made by them from January 26 to February 21, 1964, they
should also be paid at the enhanced price of Rs. 52.25 per
quintal. As the representations made by them did not evoke a
favourable response, they filed suits in the Court of the
Subordinate Judge, Machilipatnam for recovery of the
difference between the controlled prices specified in the
Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control order, 1963, dated
December 19, 1963 and Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control
(Third Amendment) order, 1964. The suits filed by them were
decreed by that Court. Aggrieved by these judgments and
decrees the State of Andhra Pradesh preferred appeals to the
High Court at Hyderabad which were allowed on the ground
that is the supplies of rice were made by the appellants
before the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control (Third
Amendment) order, 1964, they were entitled only to the price
specified in the Schedule to the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price
Control order, 1963. Dissatisfied with these judgments and
decrees, the appellants applied for certificate under
Article 133(1) (a) of the Constitution which was granted to
them.
The sole question for determination in these appeals,
as already indicated, is whether the appellants were to be
paid price for the supplies to rice made by them from
January 26, 1964, to February 21, 1964, at the rate of Rs.
46.89 per quintal the rate specified in the Rice (Andhra
Pradesh) Price Control order, 1963, dated December 19, 1963
or at the enhanced rate of Rs. 52.25 per quintal as fixed by
the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control (Third Amendment)
order, 1964 dated March 23, 1964.
Mr. Nariman appearing on behalf of the appellants has
laid great emphasis on the word “substituted” occurring in
clause 2 of the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control (Third
Amendment) order, 1964 and has urged that the claim of the
appellants cannot be validity ignored Elaborating his
submission, counsel has contended that as the prices fixed
by the Government are meant for the entire season, the
appellants have to be paid at the controlled price as fixed
vide the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control (Third
Amendment) order, 1964, regardless
778
of the dates an which the supplies were made. We cannot
accede to this contention. It is no doubt true that the
literal meaning of the word “substitute” is “to replace’ but
the question before us is from which date the substitution
or replacement of the new Schedule took effect. There is no
deeming clause or some such provision in the Rice (Andhra
Pradesh) Price Control (Third Amendment) order, 1964 to
indicate that it was intended to have a retrospective
effect. It is a well recognized rule of interpretation that
in the absence of express words or appropriate language from
which retrospectivity, may be inferred, a notification takes
effect from the date it is issued and not from any prior
date. The principle is also well settled that statutes
should not be construed so as to create new disability or
obligations or impose new duties in respect of transactions
which were complete at the time the Amending Act came into
force. (See Mani Gopal Mitra v. The State of Bihar.
The aforesaid sales in the instant cases having been
made by the appellants before the coming into force of the
Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control (Third Amendment) order,
1964, and the property in the goods having passed to the
Government of Andhra Pradesh on the dates the supplies were
made, the appellants had to be paid only at the controlled
price obtaining on the dates the sales were effected and not
at the increased price which came into operation
subsequently. This view is in consonance with the provisions
of section 3 of the Act and the Andhra Pradesh Rice
Procurement (Levy) order, 1959 which clearly indicate that
the price payable to the dealers and Millers for the
supplies of rice made by them is the control price obtaining
on the date when the sale is made. Similar view is taken in
the unreported decision dated April 20, 1962 of this Court
in K. Appayya Shambhague and Co. v. The State of Mysore &
Anr. where it was laid down that the order made under
section 3(2) (f) of the Act are offers of sale which the
person on whom a requisition is served has no option but to
accept and that the price that has to be paid is the
controlled price fixed by the Government under section 3(2)
(c) of the Act on the date when he goods are ascertained or
when the property in the goods passes to the buyer. This
decision was followed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in
The Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry
of Food and Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi v.
Kanuri Damodariah & Co. Alluri Venkatanarasiah, where it was
held that an order under section 3(2) (f) amounts to an
agreement for sale and the price payable for the quantities
of rice supplied is a price payable in accordance with the
price notified under the provisions of section 3(3) of the
Act.
In the instant cases, the sale having been made before
the coming into force of the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price
Control (Third Amendment) order, 1964, the appellants cannot
justifiably claim the benefit of the increased price
specified in the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control (Third
Amendment) order, 1964. The acceptance of the.
779
contention raised on behalf of the appellants will lead to
grave consequences. It will have the effect of reopening the
transactions past and closed and would thus give rise to
lots of difficulties.
Mr. Nariman has, in support of his contention, relied
on the following passage occurring at p. 394 in Craies on
Statute Law (Sixth Edition):-
“Explanatory and declaratory Acts retrospective
Where a Statute is passed for the purpose of
supplying an obvious omission in a former statute, or,
as Parke J. (afterwards Baron Parke) said in R. V.
Dursley (1832) 3 B. & Ad. 465, 469 “to `explain a
former statute,” the subsequent statute has relation
back to the time when the prior Act was passed. Thus in
Att.-Gen v. Poughtt (1816) 2 Price 381, 392, it
appeared that by a Customs Act of 1873 (53 Geo. 3, c.
33) a duty was imposed upon hides of 9s. 4d., but the
Act omitted to state that it was to be 9s. 4d. per
cwt., and to remedy this omission another Customs Act
53 Geo. c. 105) was passed later in the same year.
Between the passing of these two Acts some hides were
exported, and it was contended that they were not
liable to pay the duty 9s. 4d. per cwt., but Thomson C.
B., in giving judgment for the Attorney General, said:
“The duty in this instant was in fact imposed by the
first Act, but the gross mistakes of the omission of
the weight for which the sum expressed was to have been
payable occasioned the amendment made by the subsequent
Act, but that had reference to the former statute as
soon as it passed, and they must be taken together as
if they were one and the same Act.”
Where an Act is in its nature declaratory, the
presumption against construing it retrospectively is
inapplicable.’
This passage has, in our opinion, no bearing on the
question before us in view of the fact that the Rice (Andhra
Pradesh) Price Control (Third Amendment) order, 1964 is
neither explanatory nor declaratory, as sought to be
interpreted by the counsel.
The contention of Mr. Nariman that the controlled
prices fixed by the Central Government for sale of rice are
seasonal prices not being based upon any cogent material
cannot also be accepted.
The High Court was, therefore, right in allowing the
aforesaid appeals preferred by the respondent and reversing
the judgment and decrees passed by the Subordinate Judge,
Machilipatnam.
In the result, the appeal, fail and are dismissed with
cost, limited to one set.
M.R. Appeals dismissed.
780