{"id":218575,"date":"2000-12-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-11-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-1-december-2000"},"modified":"2017-09-21T12:59:20","modified_gmt":"2017-09-21T07:29:20","slug":"food-corporation-of-india-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-1-december-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-1-december-2000","title":{"rendered":"Food Corporation Of India vs State Of Punjab & Others on 1 December, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Food Corporation Of India vs State Of Punjab & Others on 1 December, 2000<\/div>\n
Author: D.P.Mohapatra<\/div>\n
Bench: D.P.Mohapatro, Y.K.Sabharwal<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 7423 1996\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nFOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t01\/12\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nD.P.Mohapatro, Y.K.Sabharwal\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J<\/p>\n
      J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
      D.P.MOHAPATRA,J.\n<\/p>\n
      The  legality  and validity of the order amending\t the
\nassessment  list in respect of its property by the Municipal
\nCommittee, Sangrur in the State of Punjab is under challenge
\nin  this  appeal  filed\t by the Food  Corporation  of  India
\n(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’).\n<\/p>\n
      The  assessment  in  question   relates  to  a  godown
\ndescribed  in the notice as “property unit No.239-Block No.1
\nsituated  within the local limits of the Municipality”.\t  By
\nnotice\tNo.110\/HP dated 27.6.1991 issued under section 67 of
\nthe  Punjab  Municipal Act, 1911 ( for short ‘the Act’)\t the
\nMunicipal  Committee  intimated\t the   Corporation  that  it
\nintends\t to  amend\/revise the assessment in respect  of\t its
\nproperty  and  if the Corporation has any objection  it\t may
\nfile  the  `same  along with documentary proof\tin  support,
\nwithin\ta  month.   The relevant portion of  the  notice  is
\nextracted here-under:\n<\/p>\n
      “To  The\tDistt.\tManager, Food Corporation of  India,
\nJakhal\tRoad, Sunam.  Property Unit no.239 Block No.1  Which
\nis  situated  in the Municipal limits Sunam,  in  connection
\nwith which you are hereby informed vide this notice that the
\namendment  in the assessment of your this property is liable
\nto  be done necessarily due to the following reasons and  is
\ndone as under:-\n<\/p>\n
      Whereas your above mentioned property has wrongly been
\nleft  out  from\t the  assessment   list\t whereas  it  should
\nbe\/should have been in the same.\n<\/p>\n
      2.   Whereas the assessment of this property of  yours
\nwas  assessed  less  due  to  inadvertent  mistake\/fraud  or
\nintention, which needs amendment thereby.\n<\/p>\n
      Therefore,  vide\tthis notice you are hereby  informed
\nthat  your  above mentioned property  i.e.   house\/shop\/plot
\nalongwith  office,  godowns and quarters, the assessment  of
\nthe  same is being amended due to the aforementioned reasons
\nw.e.f.\t the year 1986-87 as per details mentioned hereunder
\nand  the new assessment is fixed as below.  Any objection in
\nthis   behalf  may  be\tgiven\tin  writing  alongwith\t the
\ndocumentary  proofs in support of the same within one  month
\nfrom today.\n<\/p>\n
      Property\tHouse\/\tName of the Name of Annual Tax\tUnit
\nNo.   Ward  Owner of tenant assessed asse- No.\tthe  if\t any
\nrent  ssed  property  after 15% deducting 10  %\t Note:-\t The
\ndifferential 1.\t Godown of house tax in food grains, respect
\nof  capacity  the years will 206656 bags be recovered  @  20
\npaise  493972.00 69373\/15 from you after per bag per  paise\/
\nallowing  the  month.  P.A.  tax paid.\t2.Pedestals  outside
\nfor  28790  bags  @  08\t paise per  bag\t per  month  2303.00\n<\/p>\n
3.Quarters  of\tclass IV employees attached 3600.00  4.Weigh
\nBridge 4000.00 5.  Office two sets 8000.00 – – – – – – – –\n<\/p>\n
      313875.00<\/p>\n
      4% Maintenance 51387.50 – – – – – – -@@
\n      II<\/p>\n
      462487.50 – – – – – – –<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Earlier  given  notice  No.PMA under  Section  67\t and
\nNo.654\/HT  dated  2.1.91  is hereby recalled  and  this\t new
\nnotice is issued accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
      Sd\/- Executive Officer, Municipal Committee Sunam”\n<\/p>\n
      In reply to the notice the Corporation denied that any
\nadditional  tax liability should be imposed on it in respect
\nof  the\t property since the godown in question\thas  already
\nbeen  assessed to property tax;\t that no addition\/alteration
\nhas  been made in the building\/godown after finalisation  of
\nthe  last  assessment, therefore, no revision of the tax  is
\nrequired  to  be made.\tThe Corporation also questioned\t the
\nvalidity  of  the revision of tax with retrospective  effect
\nfrom  1986-87.\tThe Corporation also denied the statement in
\nthe  notice that the capacity of its godown is 2,06,656 bags
\nand  not  1,84,000 bags on the basis of which  the  previous
\nassessment   was  finalised.   The   Corporation  drew\t the
\nattention  of  the  Municipal\tCommittee  that\t the  notice
\ncontaining  a similar proposal for revising the property tax
\nin  respect  of the same property on same grounds  had\tbeen
\nissued\tpreviously  and on receipt of the objection  of\t the
\nCorporation  the  said notice was withdrawn.  The  assessing
\nofficer,  by  order dated 5.12.1991, amended the  assessment
\nlist   enhancing  the  property\t tax   of  the\t godown\t  to
\nRs.4,62,487.50, rejecting the objections raised on behalf of
\nthe  Corporation.   He held, inter alia, that  the  previous
\nassessment  list was prepared under the mistaken  impression
\nthat capacity of the godown in question was 1,84,000 bags in
\nplace  of  2,06,656 bags.  Since the Corporation  failed  to
\nproduce\t any material in support of its stand that there was
\nno  error in the previous assessment and such assessment was
\nmade  on the correct factual position regarding capacity  of
\nthe  godown  the  objection raised by it was  liable  to  be
\nrejected.   Regarding the withdrawal of the previous notice,
\nthe assessing officer stated that the said notice was issued
\nproposing  a  revision\tof the tax on the  ground  that\t the
\nbuilding\/godown\t  had\tundergone   a\tchange\t which,\t  on
\nverification, was found to be incorrect;  therefore the said
\nnotice\twas  withdrawn.\t Regarding the rate of rent per\t bag
\nthe  assessment officer held that the tax is to be  assessed
\non  the basis of rent @ 20 paise per bag per month which, in
\nhis  view, was the rate at which godowns were being let\t out
\nin  the\t town.\t On these findings the assessment  list\t was
\namended\/  revised  fixing Rs.4,62,487.50 and the  order\t was
\ngiven  effect from the year 1986-87.  In the appeal filed by
\nthe  Corporation the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur
\nby order dated 22.7.92 confirmed the order of the assessment
\nwith  the modification that the amended assessment list will
\nbe  given  effect from 1.4.92 in place of the year  1986-87.
\nFrom  the  orders it appears that the  appellate  authority,
\nrejecting  the\tobjection raised by the Corporation  against
\nthe  rate  of  20  paise  per bag per  month  fixed  by\t the
\nassessing  officer, gave the reason:  “because in  principle
\nit   has   been\t stated\t  by   the   Corporation\/Warehousing
\ncorporation in a number of cases that they have no objection
\nif the assessment of godown be fixed at the rate of 20 paise
\nper  bag per month”.  The petition filed by the\t Corporation
\nbefore\tthe  State Government under section 237 of  the\t Act
\nchallenging  the order of the appellate authority confirming
\nthe  amended  assessment  list\t proved\t futile.   Then\t the
\nCorporation  filed  a  Writ  Petition before  the  Punjab  &
\nHaryana High Court seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the
\naforementioned\torders\tpassed by the statutory\t authorities
\nwhich  was  summarily dismissed by the order  dated  6.9.94.
\nThe order reads :\n<\/p>\n
      “Heard.\tNo  ground to interfere has been  made\tout.
\nDismissed.”\n<\/p>\n
      The said order is under challenge in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      Shri  Y.Prabhakar\t Rao, learned counsel appearing\t for
\nthe  appellant contended that the notice seeking revision of
\nthe  assessment list is vague and lacks particulars.  It has
\nbeen  issued  without  application of mind to  the  relevant
\nfactors.   The\tlearned counsel further contended  that\t the
\nrevision  of  tax  has been made  without  ascertaining\t the
\ncapacity of the godown which has not undergone any change in
\nstructure  or capacity since the last assessment and the per
\nbag  rate  fixed  in the order is also\twithout\t any  basis.
\nAccording  to  the learned counsel the Corporation has\tbeen
\npaying\ttax assessed on the basis of rental of 16 paise\t per
\nbag  per  month in respect of the godown taken on  hire\t and
\nthere  is no reason why that rate should not be accepted  as
\nthe  basis  for\t assessing the tax.  Per  contra  Shri\tAjay
\nMajithia,  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent  Municipal
\nCommittee supported the order of amended\/revised assessment.
\nHe  submitted that the Corporation proceeded to amend\/revise
\nthe  tax  in  respect of the godown in\tquestion  since\t the
\nprevious  assessment as such had been prepared on  erroneous
\nbasis relating to the capacity of the godown and the rate of
\nrent  per  bag.\t  The power to amend\/revise  the  assessment
\nlist,  according  to  the learned counsel,  is\tspecifically
\nvested\tin  the Municipal Committee under section 67 of\t the
\nAct  in\t exercise  of which the order has been\tpassed,\t and
\ntherefore,  the\t High  Court   rightly\tdismissed  the\tWrit
\nPetition.   Before  entering into merits of the\t contentions
\nraised\tit  will  be  convenient   to  notice  the  relevant
\nstatutory provisions.  Chapter IV of the Act ( Sections 51 –
\n68A)  contains the provisions relating to Municipal Fund and
\nProperty.  The procedure for assessing immovable property is
\ndealt  with  in sections 63 to 68A.  Section 63\t deals\twith
\npreparation  of\t assessment  list.  Section  64\t deals\twith
\npublication  and completion of the assessment list.  Section
\n65 mandates the Committee to give public notice for the time
\nfixed  for  revising the assessment list.  Section 66  which
\ndeals  with  settlement\t of lists lays down that  after\t the
\nobjections  have  been inquired into and the persons  making
\nthem  have been allowed an opportunity of being heard either
\nin  person  or by authorised agents, as they may think\tfit,
\nand  the revision of the valuation and assessments has\tbeen
\ncompleted,  the\t amendments  made  in\tthe  list  shall  be
\nauthenticated  by the signatures of at least two members  of
\nthe  committee,\t who shall at the same time certify that  no
\nvalid  objection  has  been  made   to\tthe  evaluation\t and
\nassessment  contained  in the list, except in the  cases  in
\nwhich  amendments  have been entered therein and subject  to
\nsuch amendments as may thereafter be duly made, and that the
\ntax  so assessed shall be deemed to be the tax for the\tyear
\ncommencing  on\tthe first day of April of the year in  which
\nnotice was issued under section 64 or section 65 of the Act.
\nIn sub-section(2) of section 66 it is provided that the list
\nwhen  amended  under this section shall be deposited in\t the
\ncommittee’s  office  and shall there be open  during  office
\nhours  to  all\towners or occupiers  of\t property  comprised
\ntherein\t or  the  authorised agents of such  persons  and  a
\npublic\tnotice\tthat  it  is  so  open\tshall  forthwith  be
\npublished.   In\t Section  67 provision is made\tfor  further
\namendments  of\tan  assessment list.  Since  the  proceeding
\nunder  challenge  was  initiated under that section,  it  is
\nquoted\tin extenso:  “67.  Further amendments of  Assessment
\nlist  (1)  The committee may at any time amend the  list  by
\ninserting  the\tname of any person whose name ought to\thave
\nbeen  or ought to be inserted, or by inserting any  property
\nwhich  ought  to  have been or ought to be inserted,  or  by
\naltering  the  assessment  on any property  which  has\tbeen
\nerroneously  valued  or assessed through fraud, accident  or
\nmistake,  whether  on  the part of the committee or  of\t the
\nassessee, or in the case of tax payable by the occupier by a
\nchange\tin  the tenancy, after giving notice to\t any  person
\naffected  by  the  amendment, of a time, not less  than\t one
\nmonth  from the date of service at which the amendment is to
\nbe made.\n<\/p>\n
      (2)  Any\tperson interested in any such amendment\t may
\ntender\this objection to the Committee in writing before the
\ntime,  fixed  in the notice or orally or in writing at\tthat
\ntime,  and shall be allowed an opportunity of being heard in
\nsupport\t of the same in person or by authorized agent, as he
\nmay think fit.\n<\/p>\n
      (3)  Notwithstanding  anything contained in this\tAct,
\nthe  Committee may with a view to give effect to the  annual
\nvalue  as  modified by the Punjab Municipal (Amendment)\t Act
\n11, 1994 amend the assessment list of the year commencing on
\nthe  first day of April of the relevant year for  increasing
\nor  reducing  annual  value  of\t any  property\tand  of\t the
\nassessment  thereupon after giving notice at any time to any
\nperson\taffected by the amendment of a period not less\tthan
\none month from the date of service at which the amendment is
\nto  be\tmade and the Committee shall consider any  objection
\nmade  in  this\tregard by any such person  and\tthe  amended
\nassessment  list shall come into force with effect from\t the
\nfirst  day of April of the year in which notice was given to
\nthe person affected.”\n<\/p>\n
      Section  68-A vests further power in the Committee  to
\namend  assessment  list\t on grounds of\tfraud,\taccident  or
\nmistake on the part of the Committee or of the assessee.  On
\na  reading of the afore-quoted provisions, it is clear\tthat
\nwhile  vesting\tthe  power  in the  Committee  to  amend  an
\nassessment  list, the Legislature has taken care to  specify
\nthe circumstances in and the grounds on which such amendment
\nmay be made;  it has also laid down the manner in which such
\namendment  or revision of the assessment list is to be made.
\nCare  has  also been taken to comply with the  principle  of
\nnatural justice by making the provision for giving notice to
\nthe  person  who  is likely to be affected by  the  proposed
\namendment  giving him not less than a month’s time to tender
\nobjection,  if\tany,  to the Committee and allowing  him  an
\nopportunity  of\t being\theard in support of  the  objections
\nraised.\t  Notice  to  the affected person  mandated  in\t the
\nsection\t is  not  an  empty formality;\tit is  meant  for  a
\npurpose.   A  vague and unspecific notice will\tnot  provide
\nreasonable  opportunity\t to  the noticee to  file  objection
\nmeeting\t the  reasons\/grounds on which the amendment of\t the
\nassessment  list  is  proposed to be made.   Such  a  notice
\ncannot\tbe  taken  to  be   complying  with  the   statutory
\nrequirement.   On  perusal  of\tthe  notice  issued  to\t the
\nCorporation,  which  is\t on record, it is evident  that\t the
\nnotice\tis  vague and lacks particulars.  It neither  states
\nthe  reason  for\/or  the ground on which  the  amendment  is
\nproposed to be made nor does it indicate any material on the
\nbasis  of  which  the revision as stated in  the  notice  is
\nproposed  to be made.  It is stated in the notice:  “Whereas
\nyour above-mentioned property has wrongly been left out from
\nthe assessment list, whereas it should have\/should have been
\nin  the\t same.\tWhereas the assessment of this\tproperty  of
\nyours  was assessed less due to inadvertent mistake\/fraud or
\nintention, which needs amendment thereby”.\n<\/p>\n
      It is apparent that the Committee is not sure on which
\nground\tit  proposes to proceed for amending the  assessment
\nlist.\tSuch  a\t notice not only does not  comply  with\t the
\nstatutory  requirements, it also defeats the very purpose of
\nthe  statutory\tprovisions.   Coming  to  the  question\t  of
\nincrease  of the capacity of the godown in question and\t the
\nrate  of  rent, neither the discussions in the orders  under
\nchallenge  indicate any basis for increasing the capacity of
\nthe  godown  from  1,84,000 to 2,06,656 bags,  nor  has\t our
\nattention  been drawn to any primary material in support  of
\nthe  order.  In the circumstances the contentions raised  by
\nthe learned counsel for Corporation that notice is vague and
\nit  has been issued without due application of mind and\t the
\ngrounds\t stated in the order are based on no material,\thave
\nto  be\taccepted.   From the discussions  in  the  foregoing
\nparagraphs  it\tis  clear  that\t the  order  passed  by\t the
\nassessing  officer and confirmed by the appellate  authority
\nand  the  State Government are clearly\tunsustainable.\t The
\nHigh  Court  was  in error in dismissing the  writ  petition
\nsummarily by passing an unreasoned order as has been done in
\nthis  case.  Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with  costs.
\nThe  order  passed  by the High Court  dismissing  the\twrit
\npetition is set aside.\tThe writ petition is allowed and the
\norders\tpassed\tby  the assessing authority,  the  appellate
\nauthority and the State Government are quashed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Food Corporation Of India vs State Of Punjab & Others on 1 December, 2000 Author: D.P.Mohapatra Bench: D.P.Mohapatro, Y.K.Sabharwal CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7423 1996 PETITIONER: FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/12\/2000 BENCH: D.P.Mohapatro, Y.K.Sabharwal JUDGMENT: L…..I………T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J J U D G M […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-218575","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nFood Corporation Of India vs State Of Punjab & Others on 1 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-1-december-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Food Corporation Of India vs State Of Punjab & Others on 1 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-1-december-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-21T07:29:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-1-december-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-1-december-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Food Corporation Of India vs State Of Punjab & Others on 1 December, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-21T07:29:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-1-december-2000\"},\"wordCount\":2551,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-1-december-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-1-december-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-1-december-2000\",\"name\":\"Food Corporation Of India vs State Of Punjab & Others on 1 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-21T07:29:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-1-december-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-1-december-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-1-december-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Food Corporation Of India vs State Of Punjab & Others on 1 December, 2000\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Food Corporation Of India vs State Of Punjab & Others on 1 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-1-december-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Food Corporation Of India vs State Of Punjab & Others on 1 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-1-december-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-21T07:29:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-1-december-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-1-december-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Food Corporation Of India vs State Of Punjab & Others on 1 December, 2000","datePublished":"2000-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-21T07:29:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-1-december-2000"},"wordCount":2551,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-1-december-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-1-december-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-1-december-2000","name":"Food Corporation Of India vs State Of Punjab & Others on 1 December, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-21T07:29:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-1-december-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-1-december-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/food-corporation-of-india-vs-state-of-punjab-others-on-1-december-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Food Corporation Of India vs State Of Punjab & Others on 1 December, 2000"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218575","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=218575"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218575\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218575"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=218575"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=218575"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}