Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: authorised controller in Rashbihari Panda Etc vs State Of Orissa on 16 January, 1969Matching Fragments
On January 24, 1968, a petition was moved by Rashbihari Panda in the High Court of Orissa under Art. 226 of the Con- stitution challenging the action, of the Government. The Government, it appears, had second thoughts and the offers to renew the previous licenses were withdrawn and the licensees were informed that the Government had decided to invite offers for advance-purchases from persons who had purchased Kendu leaves from individual units during the year 1967 and had not committed default in payment of the dues. Other writ petitions were filed challenging the legality of the new method adopted by the State Government of offering to enter into agreements for advance purchases of Kendu leaves by private offers in preference to open competition. It was urged on behalf of the petitioners that in seeking to enter into agreements for advance purchase contracts, for Kendu leaves by private negotiation the State Government sought I to support their party interests in preference to public 'benefit envisaged by the State monopoly, and that the so-called State monopoly trade in Kendu leaves "was a colourable device to make, 'it appear constitutional and permissible under Art. 19(6) (ii) of the Constitution", whereas in truth it was intended to benefit only the supporters of the party in power, and the scheme on that account "was a fraud on the Constitution". The new scheme, it was said, was devised for the purpose of increasing the party funds to the detriment of public revenue, and on that account the act of the State Government was "mala fide and unconstitutional". The petitioners claimed that the Government of Orissa had classified the units into five sections raising the royalty or share of profit from the purchaser from Rs. 44 to a maximum amount of Rs. 64 whereas the offer of one of the petitioners who offered Rs. 1 00 per bag in addition to the rates offered by the Government by a telegram early in January 1968 and followed by a confirmatory letter, was not accepted. It was further said that an offer made by a manufacturer of bidis to purchase the entire crop for a total amount of rupees three crores was also not accepted. On behalf of the State it was submitted that till 1967 no rate was fixed for dried and processed leaves in the hands of the growers but when the new Ministry assumed office in 1967 the minimum price was fixed at Rs. 35 per bag of processed leaves in the hands of the growers, which was later raised to Rs. 45 per bag, and the remuneration payable to pluckers was also raised under orders issued by the Government, and as a result thereof it was anticipated that the pluckers and growers would earn Rs. 47 lakhs in addition to the amount they had earned in 1967; that the scheme of making an offer to established licensees was evolved with a view to "close the channels of corruption and the policy had eliminated all sorts of negotiations or personal approach in the matter of sale of Kendu leaves by the Government", and after careful consideration, the Government determined the fair price that may be realized by selling Kendu leaves, that the dealers who were given contracts for two years by the previous Ministries had been offered options to purchase the leaves at rates higher than 'those obtaining during the last few years and that under the new policy the profits earned rose from Rs. 1, 00,75,000 in 1962-63 to Rs. 1,91,00,000 in 1968-69. It was also submitted that under s. 10 of the Kendu Leaves (Control of Trade) Act, the Government was authorised to dispose of the Kendu leaves in such manner as the Government may direct and thereby the authority vested in the Government to use their discretion "was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court", and that from the data furnished it was clear that the Government had acted in the best interests of the State and the "figures showed their bona fides in the matter".