Civil Appeal No 2756 of 1987
From the Judgment and Order dated 291986 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CMP No 742 of 1985
SN Khare and TC Sharma for the Appellants
SK Gambhir for the Respondents
304 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH J
The Ist respondent Ashok Deshmukh was appointed as a Panchayat and Social Education Organizer in the Social Welfare Department Government of Madhya Pradesh Bhopal on 1681976
By an order dated 11th March 1983 he along with 13 others was posted on deputation as an officiating Block Development Officer in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh
The relevant portion of the said order posting the Ist respondent on deputation read as follows GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT Bhopal dated 11th March 1983 O R D E R Serial Number 1719146322V 282
The following Panchayat and Social Education Organisers are appointed on the post of officiating Block Development Officer temporarily and on deputation from the date of taking charge in the pay scale of Rs350 25 400 25 500 EB 30 650 until further orders and they are posted in Development Block shown against their names
This posting on deputation would be entirely temporary and they would not be entitled to become semi permanent or permanent on this post
If required their services may be transferred back to their parental department at any time after notice
_____________________________________________ section Name of Panchayat Name of Development Noand Social Educational block where posted Organiser 1 2 3 _____________________________________________ 1         7
Shri Ashok Deshmukh Kurwai Vidisha        
In the name and according to the order of Governor of Madhya Pradesh 305 Sd AKChandra Secretary Govt of MP Rural Development Department The Ist respondent was transferred from the post of Block Development Officer Kurwai in Vidisha district which he was holding on deputation as aforesaid to the Development Block of Udaipura
District Raisen by an order dated August 1 1983
On 29th June 1984 the services of the Ist respondent were placed at the disposal of his parent department by an order made by the Secretary to the Government Panchayat and Rural Development Department Madhya Pradesh
The said order read thus GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT BHOPAL DATED 29TH JUNE 1984 ORDER No 6297103122V 2Est 84
The services of Shri Ashok Deshmukh appointed temporarily on deputation as officiating Block Development Officer Development Block Udaipura Distt
Raisen are returned back to his parental department Social Welfare Department because the same are not required in this department
In the name and according to the orders of Governor of Madhya Pradesh
sd Illegible Secretary Panchayat and Rural Development Department Development Aggrieved by the said order of the State Government sending him back to his parent department where he held his lien the Ist respondent filed a suit in Civil Suit No 16A of 1984 in the Court of Civil Judge Udaipura for permanent injunction restraining the Government of Madhya Pradesh from repatriating him to his parent department and he obtained an order of temporary injunction in that suit on 15111984 restraining the State Government from relieving 306 him from the post of Block Development Officer at Udaipura and directing the State Government to allow him to continue as the Block Development Officer
After the State Government entered appearance in the suit and filed its objections to the order of temporary injunction the Civil Judge vacated the order of temporary injunction by his order dated 1531985
Thereafter the Ist respondent filed a writ petition on the file of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur requesting the High Court to quash the order of repatriation in Miscellaneous Petition No 742 of 1985
After the writ petition was admitted and a stay order was issued the Ist respondent withdrew the suit filed by him before the Civil Judge Udaipura
Thereafter the High Court heard all the parties and passed an order dated 291986 quashing the order of repatriation dated 2961984 sending back the Ist respondent to his parent department and directed the State Government to retain him as officiating Block Development Officer on deputation in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department so long as persons junior to the Ist respondent were retained as Block Development Officers and there existed a vacancy
The High Court also quashed the order of the State Government dated 2051985 directing the Ist respondent to vacate the Government quarter which had been occupied by him and also the order of suspension which had been passed in the meanwhile
The High Court also directed the State Government to pay all the salary due to the Ist respondent as Block Development Officer
Aggrieved by the order of the High Court the State Government along with its officers against whom orders were made by the High Court has filed this appeal by special leave
In the writ petition two principal contentions were urged on behalf of the Ist respondent i that the order of repatriation was contrary to rule 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services Rules hereinafter referred to as the Rules  and ii the order of repatriation was arbitrary and was the result of bias and mala fide attitude on the part of Smt
Nirmala Buch Secretary Panchayat and Rural Development Department
The High Court held that the order of repatriation had been passed in violation of rule 14 of the Rules and that although there was no material on record to support the allegation of any bias and mala fides on the part of Smt
Nirmala Buch the order of repatriation was the result of certain wrong complaints made by one Panbai who was a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the state of Madhya Pradesh
Rule 14 of the Rules is as follows 307 14
Reversion and re appointment Permanent Government servants officiating in a higher grade of service may be reverted to the lower grade of service from which they were promoted if there are no vacancies in the former grade of service and such reversion shall not be construed to be a reduction in rank Provided that the order in which such reversion shall be made will be the reverse of the order in which officiating promotion was made except when administrative convenience renders it necessary to revert an officiating Government servant otherwise than in accordance with this proviso Provided further that on the occurrence of a fresh vacancy the re appointment to the higher grade of service shall ordinarily be in order of relative seniority of the reverted Government servant
 The above rule deals with the question of reversion of a permanent Government servant from an officiating higher grade of service to the lower grade of service from which he had been promoted
This rule in terms does not apply to a case of deputation from one department to another department
Admittedly the Ist respondent had not been promoted from the post of Panchayat and Social Education Organiser which he held in the parent department to a higher post in the said department
He had been in fact posted on deputation as officiating Block Development Officer in the Panchayat and Rural Development Department
The High Court was therefore in error in holding that the impugned order of repatriation had been passed in violation of rule 14 of the Rules
It is however argued that even in the case of an officer who is deputed on a temporary basis to a post in another department the same procedure prescribed in rule 14 of the Rules should be followed
It is also submitted that there is no specific rule as to the procedure to be followed in the case of repatriation of an officer deputed from one department to another in force in the State of Madhya Pradesh
Reliance is however placed in this connection on the decision of this Court in KH Phadnis vs State of Maharashtra which was also a case in which the question of repatriation of an officer who had been posted on deputation in another department to his parent department was under consideration
This Court has observed thus at page 123 308 The order of reversion simpliciter will not amount to a reduction in rank or a punishment
A Government servant holding a temporary post and having lien on his substantive post may be sent back to the substantive post in ordinary routine administration or because of exigencies of service
A person holding a temporary post may draw a salary higher than that of his substantive post and when he is reverted to his parent department the loss of salary cannot be said to have any penal consequence
Therefore though the Government has right to revert a Government servant from the temporary post to a substantive post the matter has to be viewed as one of substance and all relevant factors are to be considered in ascertaining whether the order is a genuine one of accident of service  in which a person sent from the substantive post to a temporary post has to go back to the parent post without an aspersion against his character or integrity or whether the order amounts to a reduction in rank by way of punishment
Reversion by itself will not be a stigma
On the other hand if there is evidence that the order of reversion is not a pure accident of service  but an order in the nature of punishment Article 311 be attracted
 In the above case this Court came to the conclusion that the impugned order of repatriation was in fact in the nature of punishment and therefore this Court quashed it
C Thiraviam Pillai vs State of Kerala and others was a case relating to repatriation of an officer who was reverted to his parent department from the post which he held on deputation
The High Court of Kerala quashed the order or repatriation since in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government it had been admitted that the order impugned therein had been passed since there were local complaints about the work in the block and instances where the officer in question had misused his powers and acted irregularly had been cited
The Block Development Officer had to maintain very close contact with the public
The post required persons of broad outlook and service mindedness
The State Government felt that the continuance of such an officer would bring down the name of the Development Department in the eyes of the public and so in the interests of service and the department Government considered that he should be reverted back to his parent department
It is thus seen that the above averment clearly established that the order of repatriation 309 had been passed on account of allegations made against the officer concerned and it carried a stigma
Moreover in the above case the relevant rule provided that persons selected for the post of Block Development Officers would be treated on deputation to the Development department for a period of five years the Development Commissioner having the right to revert any of them to his parent department if his work proved to be unsatisfactory and to extend the period of deputation beyond five years in exceptional cases
In the case before us no specific period had been mentioned as the period during which the Ist respondent would be on deputation either in the order sending him on deputation or in any relevant rule or Government order
The only question which remains to be considered is whether the impugned order is one which attached a stigma to the Ist respondent
The allegations made in this behalf are that one Panbai MLA referred to above had when the petitioner was at Kurwai made complaint against the Ist respondent in connection with certain local elections
The said complaint was after enquiry found to be wrong
On the date on which the Ist respondent was repatriated he was not working in Kurwai block which was the block in which Smt
Panbai was interested
He was working at Udaipura block in a different district altogether
The respondents had filed counter affidavit denying that Smt
Nirmala Buch the Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh had any ill will against the Ist respondent
The High Court also came to the conclusion that there was no material on record to show that there was any bias or mala fide on the part of Smt
Nirmala Buch
Yet it proceeded to observe as follows Although there is no material on record to support the allegations of any bias and mala fide on the part of Smt
Nirmala Buch the Secretary Panchayat and Rural Development Department but the wrong complaints of the said MLA appear to be the only basis for passing the impugned order of reversion as well as the order of transfer of the petitioner who had incurred the displeasure of his superiors because of the said reports which were found to be incorrect With respect to the High Court it has to be stated that having observed that there was no material to support the allegation of any bias and mala fide on the part of the Secretary to the Government it committed an error in assuming that the basis of impugned order of repatriation could only be the displeasure of his superiors which the Ist 310 respondent had incurred by reason of the wrong complaints of a Member of the Legislative Assembly
It is significant that the order is silent about the names of those superiors who were displeased on account of the allegations said to have been made by the Member of the Legislative Assembly
This part of the order of the High Court is based on mere surmise
The High Court overlooked that the allegations of bias and mala fides are easily made but when it comes to the question of proof of such allegations very often there will be no material in support of them
This is one such case
If mere existence of some allegations against an officer which on inquiry had been found to be untrue is to be treated as the basis for quashing any order of transfer or repatriation made in respect of any officer then almost every such order of transfer or repatriation would have to be quashed because there would always be some complaint by some party or other against every officer
Unless the court is sure that the impugned order is really based upon such allegations it should not proceed to quash administrative orders which are made in the exigencies of the administration
The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government before the High Court also shows that some other officers who had been posted on deputation like the Ist respondent also had been reverted to their parent department and again some of them had been posted back as Block Development Officers
Perhaps even in the case of the Ist respondent a similar order posting him back as Block Development Officer would have been passed by the State Government had he not filed the suit and then the writ petition making it difficult for the State Government to take a decision on the question of again posting him as a Block Development Officer during the pendency of the proceedings
The impugned order of repatriation passed in respect of the Ist respondent does not on the face of it show that there is any stigma attached to the Ist respondent by reason of the said order
We are clearly of the opinion that the allegations of bias and mala fides made against Smt
Nirmala Buch have remained unsubstantiated
The Ist respondent had no vested right to continue on deputation as Block Development Officer
On the material placed before us we do not find that the order of repatriation is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
We therefore find it difficult to agree with the High Court
The order passed by the High Court is therefore liable to be set aside
It is quite possible that the Ist respondent may again be sent on deputation as Block Development Officer
That however is within the discretion of the State Government
311 In view of what we have stated above we have not considered it A necessary to decide the question whether the Ist respondent could proceed with the writ petition after having withdrawn the suit which he had filed earlier in the Court of Civil Judge Udaipura
In the result we set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by the Ist respondent
In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs
RSS Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellant Coffee Board filed writ petitions in the High Court praying for a declaration that the mandatory delivery of the Coffee under section 25i of the  was not sale and that section 2t of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act 1957 required to be struck down if the same encompassed compulsory acquisition also and challenging the show cause notice proposing to re open the tax assessment and the pre assessment notice proposing to assess the Board to purchase tax on the Coffee transferred from Karnataka to outside the State
The Coffee Board has also filed in the High Court writ petitions challenging the assessments and the demands for the purchase tax
The appellant Coffee Board had contended that the compulsory delivery of Coffee under the extinguishing all the marketing rights of the growers was compulsory acquisition  and not sale or purchase to attract levy of purchase tax and that the appellant was only a trustee  or agent of the growers not exigible to purchase tax and that all the export sales were in the course of export immune to tax under Article 286 of the Constitution
It was held by the High Court that an element of consensuality subsisted even in compulsory sales governed by law and once there was an element of consensuality even though minimal that would be sale or purchase for purposes of Sale of Goods Act and the same would be exigible to sales or purchase tax under the relevant Sales Tax law of the country
On an analysis of all the provisions of the in general and sections 17 and 25 in particular the High Court held that on the true principles of compulsory acquisition or eminent domain it was difficult to hold that on compulsory delivery by growers to the Board there would be compulsory acquisition of coffee by the Coffee Board
The High Court dismissed all the writ petitions by a common judgment
The Coffee Board filed appeals in this Court by 349 certificate against the decision of the High Court
The writ petitions filed in this Court were for the determination of the rights obligations and liability between the petitioners and the Coffee Board in respect of the sales tax due and payable on the transactions between the parties
Dismissing the appeals and the Writ Petitions Nos 358 and 37 of 1986 and disposing of the Writ Petitions Nos 36 and 39 of 1986 the Court
 HELD The question involved in these appeals and the writ petitions was the exigibility of tax on sale if any by the growers of the coffee to the Coffee Board
Basically it must depend upon what is sale in the general context as also in the context of the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act 1957 as amended from time to time and the 
These however must be examined in the context of general law namely the and the concept of sale in general
358F G Coffee Board is a dealer  registered as such under the and the Sales Tax Acts of all the States in which it holds auctionsmaintains depots runs coffee houses
It collects and remits sales tax on all the coffee sold by it to the State in which the sale takes place
It transfers coffee from one State to another
360BE This Court Bench of Five Judges in the case of State of Kerala vs Bhavani Tea Produce Co   which arose under the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income Tax Act held that when growers delivered coffee to the Board all their rights therein were extinguished and the Coffee vested in the Board
The Court however did not hold that there was a taxable sale  by the grower to the Board in the year in question
The Court in this case was bound by the clear ratio of that decision and it could not by pass the same
That decision concludes all the issues in this case
Several questions were canvassed in these appeals in view of the decision of the High Court and all the questions were answered by this Court in the Bhavani Tea Produce Co s case supra against the appellant
360F G 364B All the four essential elements of sale 1 parties competent of contract 2 mutual consent though minimal by growing coffee under the conditions imposed by the The Act 3 transfer of property in the goods and 4 payment of price though deferred were present in the transaction in question
As regards the provision under section 262 empowering the Coffee Board to purchase additional 350 coffee not delivered for inclusion in the surplus pool it is only a supplementary provision enabling the Coffee Board to have a second avenue of purchase the first avenue being the right to purchase coffee under a compulsory delivery system formulated under section 251 of the Act
The scheme of the Act is to provide for a single channel for sale of coffee grown in the registered estates
The Act directs the entire coffee produced except the quantity allotted for internal sale quota if any to be sold to the Coffee Board through the modality of compulsory delivery and imposes a corresponding obligation on the Coffee Board to compulsorily purchase the coffee delivered to the pool except 1 where the coffee delivered is found to be unfit for human consumption and 2 where the coffee estate is situated in a far off and remote place or the coffee grown in an estate is so negligible as to make the sale of coffee through compulsory delivery an arduous task and an uneconomical provision
367E H 368A B In the nature of transactions contemplated under the Act mutual assent either express or implied is not totally absent in this case in the transactions under the Act
Coffee growers have a volition or option though minimal or nominal to enter into the coffee growing trade
If any one decides to grow coffee he must transact in terms of the regulation imposed for the benefit of the coffee growing industry
Section 25 of the Act provides the Board with the right to reject coffee if it is not upto the standard
Value to be paid as contemplated by the Act is the price of the coffee
There is no time fixed for delivery of coffee either to the Board or the curer
These indicate consensuality not totally absent in the transaction
368C E The scheme contemplated under the Act was not an exercise of eminent domain power
The Act was to regulate the development of coffee industry in the country
The object was not to acquire coffee grown and vest the same in the Coffee Board
The Board is only an instrument to implement the Act
The High Court had rightly observed that the Board has been chosen as the instrumentality for the administration of the Act
It cannot be said in the Act there is any compulsory acquisition
In essence the scheme envisages sale and not compulsory acquisition
The terms sale  and purchase  have been used in some of the provisions and that is indicative that no compulsory acquisition was intended
The levy of duties of excise and customs under sections 11 and 12 of the are inconsistent with the concept of compulsory acquisition
Section 134 of the clearly fixes the liability for 351 payment of duty of excise on the registered owner of the estate producing coffee
The Board is required to deduct the amount of duty payable by such owner from the payment to the grower under section 34 of the Act
The duty payable by the grower is a first charge on such pool payment becoming due to the grower from the Board
Section 11 of the Act provides for levy of duty of customs on coffee exported out of India
This duty is payable to the Customs Authorities at the time of actual export
The levy and collection of this duty are not unrelated to the delivery of coffee by the growers to the Board of the payments made by the Board to the growers
The duty of excise as also the duty of customs are duties levied by Parliament
It is not a levy imposed by the Board
The revenue realised from levy of these duties forms part of the Consolidated Fund of India which may be utilised for the purpose of the only if the Parliament by law so provides
The true principle or basis in Vishnu Agencies Pvt Ltd vs Commercial Tax officer and others etc
   applies to this case
Offer and acceptance need not always be in an elementary form nor does the law of contract or sale of goods require that consent to a contract must be express
Offer and acceptance can be spelt out from the conduct of the parties which cover not only their acts but omissions as well
The limitations imposed by the Control order on the normal right of the dealers and consumers to supply and obtain goods the obligation imposed on the parties and the penalties prescribed by the order do not militate against the position that eventually the parties must be deemed to have completed the transaction under an agreement by which one party binds itself to supply the stated quantity of goods to the other at a price not higher than the notified price and the other party consents to accept the goods on the terms and conditions mentioned in the permit or the order of allotment issued in its favour by the concerned authority
375C H 376A B A contract express or implied for the transfer of the property in the goods for a price paid or promised is an essential requirement for a sale 
In the absence of a contract express or implied there cannot be any sale in law however in this case as the scheme of the Act is there was contract contemplated between the growers and the Coffee Board
In law there cannot be a sale whether or not compulsory in the absence of a contract express or implied
376B C The imposition of tax in the manner done by the Sales Tax Authorities upheld by the High Court was correct and the High Court was right
The appeals failed
378D 352 Civil Writ Petition No 358 of 1986 was dismissed
Writ Petition No 36 of 1986 the Court could not go into the contentions in this petition
The rights and obligations of the parties inter se between the petitioners and the Coffee Board might be agitated in appropriate proceedings
Writ Petition 37 of 1986 was dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to agitate the question of liability of the petitioner vis a vis the Coffee Board in respect of the Sales Tax due and payable on the transactions between the parties in appropriate proceedings
In Civil Writ Petition No 39 of 1986 the Court passed no order this was without prejudice to the right of the parties taking appropriate proceedings if necessary for the determination of the liabilities inter se between the petitioners and the Coffee Board for the amount of the Sales Tax payable
378E G Indian Coffee Board vs State of Madras 5 STC 292 CEB Draper  Sons Ltd vs Edward Turner  Son Ltd  State of Kerala vs Bhavani Tea Produce Co   Consolidated Coffee Ltd  Anr
vs Coffee Board Bangalore etc
   Peanuts Board vs The Rockhampton Harbour Board 48 Commonwealth Law Reports 266 Vishnu Agencies Pvt Ltd etc
vs Commercial Tax officer and others etc
   Indian Steel and Wire Products Ltd Andhra Sugar Ltd and Karam Chand Thapar   State of Madras vs Gannon Dunkerley  Co Ltd   New India Sugar Mills vs Commissioner of Sales Tax Bihar  19631 Suppl
2 SCR 459 Charanjit Lal Choudhury vs The Union of India  Ors   State of Karnataka and another etc
vs Ranganatha Reddy and Anr
   Milk Board New South Wales vs Metropolitan Cream Pty Ltd  and State of Tamil Nadu vs N K Kamaleshwara 119761 1 SCR 38 referred to