TMI Blog1976 (3) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority 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 ₹ 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l 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 ₹ 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 ₹ 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 em ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant 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. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
