1976 (3) TMI 238 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Determination of price for rice supplies made by appellants in January and February 1964 u/s Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) order, 1959, in light of Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control orders of 1963 and 1964.

The judgment pertains to a batch of Appeals before the Supreme Court of India, involving a dispute over the price to be paid for rice supplies made by the appellants in January and February 1964. The main issue was whether the appellants were entitled to be paid at the enhanced rate specified in the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control (Third Amendment) order, 1964, or at the controlled price specified in the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control order, 1963. The appellants, who were millers in Andhra Pradesh, had sold rice to the State Government in compliance with requisitions served on them. The dispute arose due to the amendment in the price control order after the sales were made. The appellants contended that the substitution of prices in the amended order should apply retrospectively to their sales.

The appellants argued that the word "substituted" in the Rice (Andhra Pradesh) Price Control (Third Amendment) order, 1964, should be interpreted to mean a replacement of prices for the entire season, entitling them to the enhanced rate for the rice supplies made in January and February 1964. However, the Supreme Court held that in the absence of express retrospective provisions in the amendment order, it takes effect from the date of issuance. The Court emphasized that the controlled price applicable is the one in force at the time of sale, as per the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) order, 1959. The Court cited precedents to support the principle that prices are determined based on the date of sale, not subsequent amendments.

The appellants' reliance on statutory interpretation principles related to explanatory and declaratory acts was dismissed by the Court, as the amendment order in question was not deemed to be explanatory or declaratory. The Court rejected the argument that controlled prices for rice sales are seasonal, noting the lack of substantial evidence to support such a claim. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, which had allowed the appeals of the respondent State of Andhra Pradesh and reversed the judgments and decrees passed by the Subordinate Judge, Machilipatnam. The appeals were dismissed with costs limited to one set.