IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.6325 of 1987 Date of decision: 29.6.2010 M/s Kaudoo Mal Rikhi Ram & others. -----Petitioners. Vs. State of Punjab & another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- None for the petitioners. Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Addl.A.G., Punjab. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 21.5.1987, Annexure P-3, seeking to recover certain amounts paid to the petitioners as incidental charges @ Rs.1.35 per quintal. 2. Case of the petitioner is that under the Punjab Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1983, the rice milled by the petitioners was acquired by the Government at a prescribed price. The petitioners were also given further charges for the incidental services. As per order of Government of India dated 14.11.1984, as mentioned in Annexure P-1, incidental charges @ Rs.1.35 per quintal were paid. However, on 21.5.1987, vide Annexure P-3, CWP No.6325 of1987 the amount already paid was ordered to be recovered on the ground that the said charges were applicable only to levy rice and not to custom milled rice. It was directed that the amount so paid for the years 1984-85 and 1985-86 was liable to be recovered. 3. According to the petitioners, no such distinction was pointed out when payment was made and the petitioners adjusted their affairs accordingly. If the petitioners had known that no incidental charges will be paid by the Government, they would have not continued the custom milling. 4. As per stand of the respondents, letter dated 26.11.1984, Annexure P-1, itself makes it clear that charges were applicable to delivery of levy rice to the Food Corporation of India which did not include custom milling. 5. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 28.9.1987, order Annexure P-3 was stayed and the order of stay was modified on 9.12.1987, after hearing counsel for the parties, to the effect the said instructions, Annexure P-3, will not apply to the supplies made prior to the date of the said order i.e. 21.5.1987. 6. Even though none appears for the petitioners, we have heard learned counsel for the State who submits that the payments in question were prescribed only for levy rice and not for the custom milled rice for which incidental charges were already included in the price paid. 2 CWP No.6325 of1987 7. Question for consideration is whether recovery of the amount already paid as incidental charges was justified, when without any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioners, payments were made as being due. 8. We are of the view that payments were made to the petitioners as understood to be due under a contract. Even though mistake may not be perpetuated but unilateral decision to recover the amount paid without determining that payment was by mistake cannot, in the circumstances of the present case, be held to be justified. 9. We accordingly, allow this petition and quash Annexure P-3 for the period prior to the date of issuance of the said order. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE June 29, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3