TMI Blog1976 (2) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... increasing supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices. The Control orders contemplate regulation or prohibition or production, supply and distribution of essential commodities and trade and commerce therein. The State Government exercising powers delegated to it by the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act issued several measures to achieve the objectives of the Control orders. The Government of Andhra Pradesh introduced a scheme known as Incentive Export Scheme . Under that Scheme all millers who delivered 50 per cent of their purchases to the Food Corporation of India towards mill levy would be eligible for export under the Scheme. Incentive export permits were to be granted in the ratio of 2: 3. The ratio meant that if a miller delivered two additional wagons to the Food Corporation of India he would be entitled to export three wagons on private trade account. The last date for delivering rice to the Food Corporation of India was fixed as 20 May, 1971. The last date for issue of permits was fixed as 31 May, 1971. Permits were of four types. The A type of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of rice would be collected from the millers before the issue of permits. 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 nominees and the balance, that is to say levy free rice, could be sold in the open market or exported to the places outside the block or State under permit issued by the State Government. 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 consequential loss to both the trade and consuming public. The appellants applied for and obtained permits by fulfilling two principal conditions. 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. In the petitions before the High Court the appellant alleged that they paid the surcharge under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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 copies of regulations under which surcharge was collected. The Collector by letter dated 28 July 1970 informed the appellants that the State Government alone was competent to give the copy of the relevant rule or regulation under which surcharge was collected. The appellants referred to the letters dated 22 December, 1970 and 2 January, 1971 by which the State Government refused to grant certified copy of the rule or regulation on the ground that it was part of the official correspondence not meant to be supplied to the private party. In this back ground the appellants contended 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. 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. It was, therefore, said that The applications for refund were all made within three years from the dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refer to the exercise of any power under the order. Therefore, this Court held that G. the administrative surcharge in the Tapioca case (supra) was bad and the realisations were without any authority of law. The appellants contended relying on the decision of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai([1964] 6 S.C.R 261) that the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 has power to order refund and repayment of tax illegally collected. The appellants submitted H: that the State had no power under any statute or any authority to impose and collect administrative surcharge and, therefore, the payments which were made by the appellants were made under mistake of law and the State was liable to refund them. The appellants contended that the administrative surcharge was neither in the nature of a fee nor was it a tax and there was no authority of law to support the levy and collection of administrative surcharge. It was said on behalf of the appellants that neither the Essential commodities Act, 1955 nor the Southern States (Regulation of Export of Rice) order, 1964 nor the Andhra Pradesh Rice and Paddy order, 1965 nor the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luntary. Again, it is said that there is no mis take because the payments made were in fact due as part of the export scheme initiated at the instance of the appellants. The respondents deny the claim of the appellants on the further ground that the appellants having derived the benefit and caused detriment to the A Government are estopped from questioning the validity of the payments voluntarily made. Another ground on which the respondents challenge the claim of the appellants is that the payments were part of the consideration of the agreement entered into by the appellants with State. If it be assumed that the agreements are illegal, the respondent contends that the appellant being a party to the same cannot sue for recovery of money paid. All the matters were covered by the common judgment. In some cases the claims were beyond three years from the date of the payments. In some cases they were within a lesser time but the ground of delay on which the High Court exercised discretion is not confined L purely to period of limitation but is bound up with matters relating to conduct of parties in regard to payments pursuant to agreements between the parties. The remedy under A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en the assessments were found to be illegal. In Suganmal v. State of Madhya Pradesh ors.(A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1740) this Court said that the mandamus for recovery of money could be issued only when the petitioner was entitled to recover that money under some statute. In Burmah Construction Co. v. State of Orissa( [1962] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 242) this Court said that normally the parties are relegated to a suit to enforce civil liability arising out of a breach of contract or a tort to pay an amount of money. An order for payment of money may sometimes be made to enforce a statutory obligation. In the State of Kerala v. Aluminium Industries Ltd.(16 S.T.C. 689.) the refund claimed was by reason of the moneys being paid under mistake of law and the collection having been made wrongly. The petitions solely for the writ of mandamus directing the State to refund the moneys in the present case have been rightly refused by the High Court on the grounds of delay, insufficiency of particulars and pleadings, and voluntary payments. The additional reasons in our opinion are that various questions of fact arise as to whether there was really mistake or it was a case of voluntary payment pursuant to con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
