WP(C) 6167/2002 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarm a, learned counsel representing the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and its offi cers. Mr. J. Handique, learned Govt. Advocate appears for respondent No. 7. 2. The petitioner is the proprietor of M/S. Ramawater Swami and was functi oning as a Sub-wholeseller in the Diphu Sub-Division under the provisions of the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 1982 Order ). As a Sub-wholeseller under the Principal Secretary of the Karbi An glong Autonomous Council (hereinafter referred to as KAAC ), the petitioner lif ts PDS articles from the FCI on payment of the stipulated price and arrange for distribution of such articles to the agents operating under him. On 31.3.2000, t he petitioner on behalf of the Principal Secretary, KAAC lifted rice @ Rs.905/- per quintal from the FCI Godown at Diphu and arranged for selling of the said ri ce through the fair price shops of Diphu Sub-Division. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order for recovery of differential am ount of the FCI authorities in respect of the rice lifted by the petitioner on 3 1.5.2000 on the ground that the price of PDS rice got revised to Rs.1180/- per q uintal w.e.f. 1.4.2000 and factually w.e.f. 25.3.2000 (7 days additional period when goods are in the pipeline). The amount sought to be recovered from the peti tioner was quantified at Rs.2,14,500/- by the impugned order dated 4.9.02 (Annex ure-D) of the FCI authorities. 4. Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the peti tioner is only an agent of the original allottee i.e. Principal Secretary of the KAAC and if any differential amount is to be recovered by the FCI because of pr ice revision, the same ought to be recovered from the allottee and not from the agent. It is also contended that after the rice in question was lifted on 31.3.2000 @ R s.905/- per quintal, the same was sold through the fair price shops and to the c onsumers @ Rs.10.25 per kg. and therefore, the revised price of Rs.1180/- per qu intal is not capable of being recovered by the petitioner from the retail agent under him and accordingly the impugned recovery is contended to be unjustified in law. 5. Rebutting the petitioner’s contention, it is argued by the learned couns el for the FCI authorities that the petitioner merely acts as an agent of the or iginal allottee i.e. Principal Secretary of the KAAC and the petitioner makes pa yment and receive the goods on behalf of the Principal as its agent and not in t he personal capacity as a Sub-wholeseller. Therefore, it is submitted that the r ecovery made by the FCI is to be considered as recovery from the principal allot tee and not from the agent. It is further submitted that after the price of rice was revised to Rs.1180/- pe r quintal w.e.f. 25.3.2000, the differential amount has been recovered by the FC I authorities from all the allottees of that period and since the FCI supplies g oods at the administered price, the recovery of the differential amount has to b e considered as a legally authorized recovery. 6. Having regard to the contentions advanced by the rival counsels, it is c lear that there has been an upward revision of price of rice w.e.f. 25.3.2000 an d the FCI is entitled in law to make recovery of the differential amount from th e allottees, to whom rice was supplied at the pre-revised rate. Naturally the ob ligation to make good the differential amount lies with the principal allottee a nd the agent merely acts on behalf of the principal allottee. In the above circu mstances, the right of the FCI authorities to recover the differential amount is upheld. 7. The petitioner as the agent of the original allottee contends that the r ecovery should be made from the Principal Secretary of the KAAC (the original al lottee) and not from the agent. Although this contention is otherwise attractive , the petitioner as the agent of the principal allottee cannot be wholly absolve d of his responsibility to make good the differential amount to the FCI when it made payment earlier at the pre-revised rate and lifted the rice from the FCI Go down, on behalf of the allottee i.e. Principal Secretary of the KAAC. 8. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that if recovery of the diff erential amount has not been made from the petitioner so far, the FCI will not r ecover such amount from the petitioner but may proceed to recover the balance am ount from the Principal Secretary, KAAC (allottee). However, if recovery is alre ady effected by the FCI from the petitioner and having held that FCI was entitle d to realize the differential amount, it would not be right to direct the FCI to return the recovered amount to the petitioner. In the latter situation, the onl y relief that can be granted to the petitioner is that they may move Principal S ecretary of the KAAC for the differential amount recovered from them by the FCI, since the responsibility to pay the differential amount is that of the Principa l and the petitioner merely acts as the agent on behalf of the Principal. 9. With the above direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.