Le 257 4 1 1n CWP No 1911of2010et 1 0 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH d7 DATE OF DECISION 442011 IlCWP No1911 of2010 Mls Parkash Rice Mill eeePetitioner Versus StateofHaryanaand others C eRespondents 0 0 WP N03554 of2010 Mls Hanuman Rice Mill Gnother 0 eeePetitioners I Versus Z The StateofHaryanaand others CWP N05281 of2010 r Mls Inder SinghAjit Singh Z ePetitioner OO Versus 7 State ofHaryanaand others Z Respondents e4WP Noe5282of2010 Mls GanpatiRice Overseas 4eemmP eeePetitioner Versus State ofHaryana and others Respondents N05280 of2010 Rawat Seema 2014.05.03 13: 47 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 258 r 60 2 1 CWP No 1911of2010 etce AnnapurnaOverseas eeePetitioner Versus StateofHaryanaand others tCWP N0S279 of 2010 Mls Jhandu Mal Tara Chand eeePetitioner Versus C stateofHaryana and others 0 0 Noe5247of2010 C5 Mls HaryanaRice Lande I eeePetitioner Z Versus Stateof Haryanaand others 0 I C WP Noe5287of2010 Z Mls Shivo Shiva TradingCompany r eeePetitioner Versus Z StateofHaryanaand others 11 WP Noe5284of2010 MllsSiri Ganesh Rice and General Mill 6eeee eeePetitioner Versus StateofHaryanaand others Noe268 of2010 J Rawat Seema 2014.05.03 13: 47 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 259 C 1 0 CWP No 1911of2010 etc 3 Mls Jai DurgaRice and General Mill eeePetitioner Versus The State ofHaryanaand others Respondents Mls Hindustan Rice Mills eeePetitioner Versus 1 C The State of Haryanaand others 0 0 I CWP Noe49170f2010 C5 Mls Krishna Rice General Mills eeePetitioner Z Versus State of Haryanaand others I Noe5288of2010 Z Mls Raj Shree Rice Mills ID eeePetitioner W2 Versus Z State of Haryanaand others m 114CWP Noe5286of2010 Mls Mahavir Rice S General MilIs 4 eeePetitioner Versus State ofHarvana and others eCWP Noe5285 of2010 Rawat Seema 2014.05.03 13: 47 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 260 r 4 CWP No 1911of2010 etce 4 MJs Hanuman Rice Miils eeePetitioner Versus State ofHaryanaand others CWP NoA9370f2010 Mls A One Rice Unit ePetitioner Versus 0 State ofHaryanaand others 0 C0 I C5 CORAM I Z HONBLE MReJUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT MrTS Dhindsa Advocate MrOP GoyalSrAdvocate with I MsRimplejeet Kaur Advocate MrR0harma DAG Haryana Z MrHari Pal Venna Advocate MrGirish AgnihotriSrAdvocate with MlArvind Seth Advocate MKS Dadwal Advocate mo Z Permod KohliJ With similarityof facts and common lssues havingbeen involved 111 thesewrit petitionsthe same are beingdisposedofby this common order The petitioners in all these petitions are Millers engagedin custom rnillingof the paddypursuantto entered into with the HaryanaState CooperativeSupplyand MarketingFederation Limited hereinafter referred to as the HAFED Even thoughthere are separate impugnednotices 1Il all these petitionshowever the contents being Rawat Seema 2014.05.03 13: 47 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 261 n l 12 CWP No 1911of2010 etce 5 8 m commonfacts are beingnoticed from CWP No91 l of2010 State of Haryanaissued rice procurementlevy order called as Rice Procurement Levy9Order 1985 lereinafterrefened to as 1985 order This order has been issued under Section30f the Essential Act 1955 with the objective of maintaining the supplyof rice andfor securingits equitabledistributionand availabilityat fair prices Clause10 of the aforesaid 1985 order empowers the Govemment or the 1 DirectorFood and Supplies to direct any rice miller to convert any stock or 0 paddylnto nce held by the govemmentor its agency or the Food 0 0 ofIndia on such terms and conditionsas may be prescribed by I theGovernment or the Director In terms ofthe aforesaid Clause ofthe 1985 C Order the StateofHaryanadecided to engagevarious rice mills in the State Z of Haryanafor Custom Millingof Rice commonlyknown as CMR A detailed were formulatedin this regardon 199 2 008 0 issuedbythe Director Food and SuppliesHaryanaUnder the 1985 Order I C3 and the the miller is requiredto deliver the rice after Z custom millingto the FCI Allotment to the millers is to be made by the 10 District Level Committee headed bythe DeputyDirector and comprising of vm Z District Managerof procurementagenciesincludingthe Food Corporation m ofIndia It also provides not to make any allotment to a defaulter rice iniller Clause 5 O of the policy OAnnexureP4 providesfor execution of whereas Clause09deals with the paymentof inillingcharges 4 For the paddyseason 20082009 the petitionernamelyMls Parkash Rice Shivpuri Road Karnal was entrusted with 1439 MT tonns paddyfor milling A formal agreementenvisagedunder Clause 5 Oof the policyalso came to be executed on 2692008 Condition 15 O of the agreement Rawat Seema 2014.05.03 13: 47 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 262 t CWP No 1911of2010 etc 6 S0 for deliveryof the rice after millingas per quality laid down bythe HAFED directlyto the FCI Condition 17 of theagreementdeals with the mode and manner of deliveryThe said conditionis as underl 17The of rice shall be deemedto have been bythe MillerlSecondPartyafter the stocks are loadedinto wagons or delivered into the godowns as per 1 directions of the ofScial of the Q First Party after necessary and 0 C approvalof the quantitylll accordance with the C procedure of the First Partyat the cost of the MillerlSecondParty It will be the responsibility of the Z MillerlSecond Partyto supply A note weightcheck and all other relevant documents to the concerned memo C agency after the deliveryof rice for claiming r payment from Food Corporation of India failingwhich Z he shall be liable to pay CCL rate of interest for the delayedperiod All the includinglabour Z loading unloading and any other Clm etc incurredin connection with the delivery of ice within 8 Kms shall be bome by the MillerlSecond Party In case nce 1S delivered beyond8 Kms the incurred by the MillerlSecond e4 Party on this account shall be regulatedas per instructions of Government of lndia 9 Even FCI has issued guidelines dated 1792008 regarding inspection Rawat Seema 2014.05.03 13: 47 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 263 CWP No 1911of2010 etc 7 SsampleanalysislIl of the procurementof paddy and ofrice stock duringKharifMarketing Seasons200809 Perusalof this document reveals that proper procedure has been prescribed for ensuringthe qualityof the rice its supplyand storageetc The quality hasto be maintained as per the guidelines prescribed bythe Government of Indiaetc It is admittedcase of the partiesthat the petitioner delivered the milledrice to FCI upto the months 2009 It is alleged thatat the time of deliveryFCI Kamal carriedout detailed analysis to r test the quality of the rice delivered by the 0 C The petitioner has placedon record vanous C5 reports lll respectof the suppliesmade by the petitionerThese are collectively marked as Annexure P7 with the writ petitionThe acceptance Z reportsindicate that the milled rice suppliedconforms to the prescribed as regards the qualityofthe rice supplied In the next paddyseason 20092010 againthepartiesentered into 0 same kind of arrangement as ltl the previousSeason 200809 The Z r petitioner was entrusted with 4390 MT of paddyfor milling for the seaSOIl 0 200910 After millingthe rice was to be delivered to FCI not later than W2 Z 313010 for which followingschedule of deliverywas prescribed under the agreement executed between thepartiesfor this season as well Octoberand November 2009 200Ioofthe allotted paddy December 2009 25Io edO a0ee00 January2010 25Iedo February2010 151do March 2010 150 do 99 The milled rice was to be delivered to the FCI directlyin accordance Rawat Seema 2014.05.03 13: 47 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 264 f1 CWP No 1911of2010 etce 8 withthe contractualstipulation ln terms of the agreementdated l 102009 Thepetitionerclaims to have milled 184 MT of paddyfor the monthsof 2009 andwhen delivery was soughtto be made to FCI it refusedto take the delivery It is stated that when the petitioner made the reason for refusal of the FCI to take deliveiyit enqulrles receivedletter dated 10112009 lnnexure Ie91issued by the Pawan GuptaDepot Manager FCI Karnal wherebythe petitionerwas 1 communicated that the rice stockedby it at D3111 Bajidahad been 0 declared as Below RejectionLimit hereinafter referred to as BR lt 0 C40 was81rthercommunicated that as a pre condition the petitioner is required I C5 to replacethe rlce at lts own costsas per directions ofthe higherauthority I for acceptingthe paddyfor the year 200 10 A similar leuer dated Z 27112009 was received from the District Manager HAFED Karnal P l O askingthe petitioner to replacethe BRL stock of rice I within the specificationsas perdirections of the FCI The petitioner 2 receivedyet another letter dated 4 122009 from the Assistant Food and Z Supplies Officer Kamal on the same lines advisingthe petitioner to replace C the BRL declared rice for the year 20009 to facilitate the deliveryof the vm Z rtce pertainingto the paddyseason 2009 10 The petitionermade a 0a dated 21 12009 obectingto the demand of the FCI HAFED and Food and SuppliesDepartinentwith the pleathat the delivery of rice for the previousyear 2008 wasas perthe agreementand quality a specifications and norms Petitioner insisted for takingdeliveryof the rlce for the season 200910 The petitioner has been served with the impugned notice dated 8 l 0 10 Annexure Pe l issued bythe Area Manageraskingit to replacethe substandardstocks with stock ofapplicablespecicationsfor Rawat Seema 2014.05.03 13: 47 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 265 S4 CWP No 1911of2010 etce 9 a season 200809within seven daysfailingwhich the Corporation reserves ee1 therightto disposeof substandardrice stock delivered bythe petitioner at its risk and costs without further notice and without prejudice to the legal includingbanningthe business dealingand to the State Government for blaclolistingThis Ietter Annexure P was followed byanother notice dated 151 2Ol O issued by the HAFED Annexure P advisingthe petitioner to replaceBRL rlce Annexure Pe21Both these letters are subjectmatter of r in the presentpetitionThe petitioner submitteda detailedreply 0 Ca3 dated2512010 64nnexurePa139 to the FCI and HAFED I 0 Challenge to theseorders is primarily on followinggroundsl ilThe are not entitled to raise disputein respectof the Z for the season 200809 at the time of deliveryof rice for the O4e season200910 as both the transactionsare distinct and arise out different r ageements C3 iiIDelivery made duringthe season 200809 was duly acceptedas Z conforming to the prescribed and standardswithout any Qo objection and thus no disputeregarding its qualityand speci6cations could 7 Z be raised in the next season tl iiiITestsconducted allegedlyin respectof deliveryfor the year 200809 were at the back ofthe petitioner and without even informing the petitioner OvIFreshinspection has been carried out after a periodof more than six months of the deliverywhen the nce supplied to the FCI was stacked and aee lelt out to the vagariesof weather l 9 There has been violation of principles of naturaljustice There are three sets of repliesfiled by the The replies Rawat Seema 2014.05.03 13: 47 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 266 CWP No 1911of2010 etc 10 i tlled by the FCI and the HAFED do not disputethe facts stated by the petitionerRavinder Malik District Food and SuppliesController Kamal has statedthat the miller was to deliver 67Io rice of the paddyduringthe 1 crop year200809 after millingto the FCI within the stipulated period upto3 132009 This deliverywas rnadeas per the termsand conditions of the agreementand milling of the petitionerhad been refunded by District ManagerHAFED However respondent no has m the rice deliveredbythe petitioner after eightmonthsand refusedto C acceptthe rther rice ofcropyear 20093 vide letter dated 101 12009 0 0 In the replyfiled by noA and 5 FCI their actlOn lS C soughtto be justifiedon the groundthat rice suppliedby the petitioner duringthe season 200809 was found to be substandard ie Below Z RejectionLimit againstthe laid down for the relevantyear It 1S further mentionedthat a super inspection was carried out by Shri Janak Raj AGM QC FCI Zonal Offlce North Noida and the analysisrepons I dated 23102009 to 28102009 4nnexures RSllA e511B e511C1 Z showsthat the stocks deliveredbythe petitioner were below the laid down oo 1 norms BRL and the petitionerwas required to replacethe same for m Z which sufficient opportunity was grantedto the petitionerIt is further Ll allegedthat merelybecause stocks were acceptedby the FCI petitioner cannot be absolved of its liability It lS stated that in fact petitioner succeeded in deliveringthe Below RejectionLimit stocks ln connlvance with the officials ofthe CorporationIt is rther mentioned that officials of CorporationnamelyShri KCGarg Area ManagerSP Dubey AGM QC9 SNGaba Managerand RajeshChaudharyTechnicaI Assistant were placed under and Someof them haveeven been Rawat Seema 2014.05.03 13: 47 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 267 t CWP No 1911of2010 etce 11 8 relievedfrom serviceofthe FCI According to noA and 5 216 MT rice deliveredbythe petitionerduring the periodfrom 122009 to 5 3 2009 was found to be Below RejectionLimit causingloss to the to the tune of RsA6A8 lacs It is mentionedthat the petitioner was afforded an opportunityto replacethe substandardrice The were not onlyagainstthe petitionerbut also againstnumber of othermillers It is further mentioned that the offer of the Corporation was m by about 31 millers who replacedthe substandard rice supplied r duringthe season 200809 but the petitioner failed to do so 0 0 havealso pleadedthat there lS an arbitrationclausebeingClauseNo23 In C5 the agreemententered between the petitioner and respondent no6 whic I mter alia providesfor settlement of all disputesby referring to the sole Z arbitration of the Director Food and Supplies Director of the Agencvor any person appointcdby them in this behalf The r I have thus challenged the ofthe writ petition The petitionerhas filed replicationreiterating its stand in the writ Z petitionThe additional fact stated in the replicationis that even as per CO inspectionreporttheinfraction in the specicationis inequitableIt is Z 8lrtherpleadedthat the allegedsuper inspection was carried out after a periodof more than six months and without any notice to the petitioner Or associatingit with such inspection I have heard leamed counsel for the partiesat lengthand carefully nee gonethroughthe record Duringthe pendencyof this petition some interim orders were passedaskingthe FCI to acceptthe stocks of rice for the season 20092010 and pay 50Io ofthe billingchargesDetailed interim order in this regard was Rawat Seema 2014.05.03 13: 47 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 268 4 e 12 CWP No 1911of2010 etce on April 9 2010 This order passedin CWP No191 1 of 2010 was extendedto all the writ petitions Issuesinvolved in this petitionare two folds supplyof rice for the season 20009 6ii9Supply of custom millingof ricefor the season 20092010 both the transactionswere under distinct and separate executed between the partiesgoveming the custom millingof paddyfor conversion torice in accordancewith the contractualstipulations 0 andthe Scheme formulated under the 1985 Order It is common case ofthe 0 C that all supplies were accepted bythe FCI from the petitioner for the C season2008e09without any objectionin respectof qualityspeciScation I quantitymode and manner of deliveryetc as under the Z aJeementsNot onlythat the rice was acceptedeven payments were made to the petitionerand their securitydepositreleased by the HAFED obviously with the concurrence of FCI Even FCI in its detailed counter did not dispute the deliveryof rice and the release of payments and security Z without any objectionThe case projectedby the FCI 1S that super 0 inspectiollwas carried out by the officials of the FCI wherein the rice 7 Z suppliedby the petitioner was found substandard ie Below Rejection tl Limit BRLl This inspection was carried out by the officials of the FCI after six months of the final supplybythe petitionerIt is pertinentto note that the supplyofthe rice was to be made in five phasesbetween October to 4ee March At no stage duringthe periodof supplyspreadingover six months anv objection was raised regarding the qualityspeciflcations of the rlce suppliedIt was only when the entire supplywas made and after release of payments and securityand after six months the super inspection was said to Rawat Seema 2014.05.03 13: 47 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 269 1 CWP No 1911of2010 etce 13 0e be carried out No has been renderedby the FCI for not carryingout any lnspectionor duringthe six months of supply periodor immediately on of supply To the contrary the have placedon record the analysisreportin respectofthe quality ofthe deliveryofrice madebythem These analysis were also carried out bythe FCI Apartfrom above the test said to be conductedby the FCI duringsuper inspectionwas carried out at the back of the It would have been more prudentto assoclate the petitioner t when duringsuper inspectionany deficiencywas noticed in the rice 0 0 bythe petitionerbut the FCI chose not to associatethe petitioner C5 the suppliersor even inform them It has also come on record that the custom milled rice was lyingin the depotof the FCI The condition under Z which storagewas made has not beenbrought on record Admittedlyrice 1S a perishable item It needs to be keptunder prescribed condition for longer storageIife If it is left to vagaries of weather it is open to perishNo such I t rnaterialhas been brought on record or even pleadedin the replyregarding Z the storageconditions of the rice suppliedby the petitionerduringthe 0 season 200809 In any case the petitioners were not putto any notlce or Z provided an opportunity of beingheard regarding the quality CJm before carrying out the test or even at the time the test was conducted This has resulted into serious violation ofthe principlesofnaturaljusticeNotice to the petitioner was givenonly with regardto replacementof the alleged 4WeW substandardrice However at the time of determination whether the rice is substandard or not no notice was ever issued to the petitionerThus action of the in rlsing deliveryof rice for the season 200e2010 is not justifiableunder any Clrcumstances have referred to 4 Rawat Seema 2014.05.03 13: 47 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 270 r4 CWP No 1911of2010 etce I4 Im of the Honble SupremeCourt passedin the case of Tapan Kumar Sadhukhan vse Food Corporationof India and others 199616 Court Cases 101 In this judgmentHonble Supreme Court has the need for improvingpublichealth While dealingwith the prOVlSlOrlSof Food Corporation of India Act 1964 it has been observed thatit is the obligationof the State or its agency to raise nutritionallevel andimprovepublichealthIthas also been held thatthe State should not 1 allow substandardfood grainsto reach market for human consumptlon C without upgrading the same so as to make it fit for human 0 0 While referringto this judgmentit has been pleadedon behalf of C5 that substandardrice cannot be utilized bythe State for supply under the public distribution systemas it is injurious to publichealth I fail Z to understandhow this judgment is relevant in so far as the interse dispute 9 betweenthe petitioner and is concerned Stateand its agencvs r obligation to providefood grainsfit for human to the needy e persons who are dependent upon the State sponsoredpublicdistribution Z system cannot be disputedHowever the questionin the presentpetitionlS f breach of mutual contractual obligationsbetween the partiesand mmo Z thereof This judgment does not helpthe in any Om manner except to obligatethem to supplyonlysuch food grainsas are 6t for human consumptionbyupgradingthe substandardfood grains have also pleadedagainstthe of the writ 1 petitionon two counts flrstly that the writ petitioninvolves disputed questionsof fact and thus discretionaryremedyunder Anicle 226 of the Constitution of India is not available to the petitionersSecondlythere 1S an arbitrationClauseNo3 in the contract agreement between the parties Rawat Seema 2014.05.03 13: 47 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 271 e CWP No 1911of2010 etce 15 00r 04 andthe onlyremedyavailable to the petitioner 1Sto invoke the remedyby wayof arbitration It is true that the HighCourt while exercisingwrit jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should be reluctant to entenain a writ petitioninvolving senous questions of fact However this is not a ruleof law but a rule of discretion where the HighCourt exercises a self imposed restrictionto avoid to upon disputedquestions of fact in exerciseofwritjurisdictionIn the presentcase theredoes not seem to be 0 any senous questionsof fact so as to decline the pleaof the 0 0 in the writ petitionWhat is soughtto be projectedas disputed I of fact is the supplymade by the petitionerduringthe season 20082009 have pleadedthat the nce suppliedwas Z substandardwhereas the petitionershave pleadedthe same to be conforming to the prescribed quality The supplyof rice its rl I quantityetc is an admitted positionamongstthe partiesThe petitioners haveplacedon record analysis conducted bythe Food Corporation of India Z certifying the quality prescribed under the agreementand the CO norms laid down by the Government of India This fact lS not disputedIt 7 Z has however been pleadedbythe that when a super inspection Il WaS conducted after six months of the supplynce supplywas found to be substandard Such tests were not conducted in the presence ofthe petitioner or with their association Under these circumstances it cannot be said that m1 there are serious disputedquestionsof fact The petitionersare disputing the analysisthe test conducted by the respondents at their back whereasthe respondents are disputingearlier analysisconducted by their own officials certifying the qualitvspecifications So what is beingdisputedis the action Rawat Seema 2014.05.03 13: 47 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 272 CWP No 1911of2010 etce 16 0 oftheir own bythe This Court is not calledupon to decide aboutthe questionwhether the rice suppliedbythe petitionerduring theseason 200809 is substandardor not Court is onlyconcemed with the breachof contractual and the violation of the conditions laid downin theyear 1985 order which is statutoryin nature Thus the pleaof the not to interferein exercise of writ jurisdictiondeserves 1 The petitioners have relied upon a judgment of the Honble r Court passedin ABL Internation Ltd And another vse Export 0 0 CreditGuarantee Corporationof India Ltde And others J0413 SCC I C5 553 wherein Honble Supreme Court has held that even where there are disputed questions of fact and there is no absolute bar for entenaining the Z writpetitionjurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India can m 0 be exercisedHonble Supreme Court has even gone to the extent of saying I that if facts requireoral evidence can also be taken in exercise of writ L jurisdiction Where aIlV break of contractual obligations arises out of Z violation of principlesof naturaljusticeor arbitrary action of Staterequires QO judicialscrutiny wnt jurisdiction can be exercised Relevant observations 7 Z are contained in paragraph8 of the aforesaid judgmentwhich are reproduced here underl As could be seen from thearguments addressedin this appealand as also from thedivergent viewsofthe two courts below one ofthe questions that falls for our considerationis whethera writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India is maintainableto enforcea contractualobligationof the State or its instrumentality eewe by an aggrieved party In our opinionthis questionis no more res integra and is settledbv a largenumber ofjudicialpronouncements ofthis Coun In N Guruswamy Vs The State of Mysoreand others 1955 lI SCR 3051this Court heldl The next questionis whetherthe appellantcan complainof this by way ofa wr In our opinionhe could havedone so in an ordinary case The appellant is interestedin these contracts and has a right under the laws of the State to receive the same Rawat Seema 2014.05.03 13: 47 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 273 1 Lv CWP No 1911of2010 etce 17 0 treatment and begiventhesame chanceas anybodY elSea We would therefore in the ordinary course have giventhe the writ he seeks But owingto the time which this matter hastaken to reach us 6a consequencefor which the appellant 1S ln no wayto blame for he has done