IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.14765 of 2009 Date of Order: 25.9.2009 Malwa Rice & General Mills, Chamkaur Sahib and others ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. Raghav Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Hari Pal Verma, Advocate for respondent No.3. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR,J The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of direction to the respondents to make necessary amendment in the costing sheets in respect of Kharif Marketing Seasons and reimburse the fee which has been paid by them under the Punjab Infrastructure Development Act, 1998 as also the Punjab Infrastructure (Development & Regulation) Act, 2002 along with interest. The aforesaid question has arisen in a bunch of petitions before this Bench, including the case of Nav Durga Rice Mills and others v. CWP No. 14765 of 2009 Union of India and others (CWP No. 3654 of 2009, decided on 18.8.2009). After noticing the various orders made by this Court directing the respondents to settle the issue as has been done in respect of ‘Customs Milled Rice’, the Division Bench eventually directed the amendment of costing sheet even in respect of levy rice. The view of this Court is discernible from the following paras of the judgment, which reads thus: “The aforesaid events show that the Food Corporation of India, Union of India, State of Punjab and P.I.D.B have not been able to hold any meeting in pursuance of directions issued by this Court vide order dated 21.4.2009. No effective decision has so far been taken under the liability to pay cess to PIDB on the levy rice. In respect of custom milled rice, the Officers' Committee has already decided to make an entry in the costing sheet by including the infrastructure development fee at the appropriate rate and accordingly it is FCI which purchase rice from the procurement agencies who is under obligation to pay the infrastructure development fee. The petitioners who are millers are in the same position as the procurement agencies like Markfed when they are under legal obligation to sell levy of rice to the extent of 75% to the FCI. We have repeatedly asked, learned counsel for the respondents to point out the difference between the two transactions one which is held between the procurement agencies like Markfed and the FCI viz.a.viz the one held between the miller who is supposed to give 75% of the rice to the FCI. 2 CWP No. 14765 of 2009 The levy rice to the extent of 75% is required to be given to FCI at a minimum support price fixed by the State under the levy order. The miller is put in unenviable position by imposing legal obligation on him firstly to supply 75% of the levy rice to FCI or any other government agency at a fixed rate irrespective of the cost incurred by him. The miller, thereafter, cannot be expected to bear the burden of infrastructure development fee under the Act. Similar rationale has prevailed when the officers' committee has taken a decision in respect of custom rice in its meeting held on 25.3.2004. The counsel for the respondents have not been able to point out any conceptual or substantive difference between the two procurements. Merely because in the costing sheet concerning levy of rice no column has been carved out for inclusion of infrastructure development fee as has been done in a case of custom milled rice would not shift the legal obligation to pay to the PIDB the infrastructure development fee to the miller instead of FCI. The obligation would continue to be that of the FCI who is a purchaser of rice from the miller as it is in the case of purchase of rice from the procurement agencies like Markfed. We also make it clear that rate of fee payable to the PIDB would be as it was prevalent at the time of procurement as there is variation from 2% to 3% which has been upheld by this court in CWP No.7766 of 2008 along with bunch of other petitions decided on 22.6.2009. 3 CWP No. 14765 of 2009 In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that this group of seven petitions deserve to be allowed and similar directions are liable to be issued which should have been prevailing in respect of the custom milled rice. Accordingly, we direct the FCI to release the payment on account of infrastructure development fee to the millers w.e.f 1.4.2002 at the prescribed rates. We further direct respondent No.1 to make necessary amendment in the costing sheet by including the element of infrastructure development fee in any of its column. The amendment in the costing sheet for the purpose of payment of infrastructure development fee shall be made w.e.f 1.4.2002 which shall operative for the future years as well. The needful shall be done at the earliest but not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order”. The aforesaid paras show that the controversy in the instant petition is fully covered and the writ petition deserves to be disposed of in the same terms. Accordingly, the Food Corporation of India-respondent No. 3 is directed to release the payment to the millers on account of infrastructure development fee paid by them with effect from 1.4.2002 at the prescribed rates. We further direct that the Union of India-respondent No. 1 may make necessary amendment in the costing sheet by including the element of infrastructure development fee in any of its columns. The amendment in the costing sheet for the purposes of payment of infrastructure development fee shall be made with effect from 1.4.202, which shall continue to operate for 4 CWP No. 14765 of 2009 the future years as well unless there is a change in law. We also make it clear that once we have issued directions for amendment of the costing sheets and have also issued directions to the Food Corporation of India i.e respondent No.3 to release the payment on account of interest of infrastructure development fee paid by the millers, then the same cannot be confined to an individual dealer. The aforesaid directions are wholesome in nature and would govern the cases of similar nature. The aforesaid observations have been made in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation in every individual case as it is common phenomenon in the State of Punjab that the millers were asked to pay infrastructure development fee under the PIDB Act. In that regard no separate directions are required to be issued. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to extend the benefit to all those, who are in the similar facts and circumstances. Writ petition stands disposed in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) September 25, 2009 JUDGE Manoj/PKapoor 5