TMI Blog1974 (4) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 were dismissed on 5 April, 1974. Reasons were to be given later on. These are as follows. 2. The petitioners asked for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from denying the petitioners their quota of levy sugar which they had been receiving under the Levy Sugar (Supply Control) Order, 1972. 3. Up to 1967 production, price, and distribution of sugar were controlled by the Governme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om levy sugar. A dealer was prohibited from selling both levy and free market sugar in order to prevent any abuse, 7. The petitioners were dealing in levy sugar. They never traded in free market sugar. 8. On 15 June, 1972 the Central Government promulgated Levy Sugar Supply Control Order, 1972. The Order provided for requisitioning of sugar from producers and for producers to supply the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appointed the petitioners agents for such distribution. The contract of agency provided for termination. The rights of the parties were purely contractual. 12. The State of Tamil Nadu announced the policy of elimination of retail sellers dealing in controlled sugar. The order dated 17 February, 1973 which is impeached by the petitioners states that pursuant to Condition 11 of the agreement, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... distribution. The Model Shops were opened by Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation. The appointment of the petitioners for distribution of levy sugar was under agreement. The State of Tamil Nadu terminated the agreement. The agreement also provided for such termination. The relationship between the State and the petitioners is purely contractual. 15. The petitioners contended that there were 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
