Full Judgment
Puttaswamy, J.
1. These appeals are by the appellants who were the Petitioners and are directed against the common order dated 27-10-1983 of Doddakale Gowda, J. rejecting their Writ Petition Nos.18727 to 18731 of 1983 at the preliminary hearing stage.
2. For the period from 1-4-1974 to 31-3-1976 the appellants had agreed to transport paddy and rice in their lorries at the rate of Rs. 1.55 per Km. per quintal and were so transporting them.
3. When there was a sudden increase in the rates of fuel and oils, the appellants and other contractors represented to the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga ('DC') and the Director of Food and Civil Supplies, Bangalore ('Director') for enhancing the rates of transportation charges from Rs. 1.55 per Km. per quintal to Rs. 1.75 Per Km. per quintal which they assert was granted by the Director and was rightly implemented by the DC by making payments at the enhanced rates. On the payments made to the appellants, there is no dispute between the parties.
4. But, on the basis of later audit objections, the DC by his Memo No. FSD.Cl.DAO.YR/74-75 dated 21-2-1983 (Annexure-A) called upon the appellants to pay the amounts Specified against their respective names as the amounts paid to them in excess of the rates stipulated in the contracts entered into between them and the State. On receipt of that Memo, the appellants made a representation to drop the same which was rejected by the DC. In W.P. Nos. 18727 to 18731 of 1983, the appellants challenged the said demands made by the DC. On 27-10-1983 Doddakale Gowda, J. has rejected them at the preliminary hearing stage. Hence, these appeals.
5. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Counsel for the appellants, contends that the learned Judge was in error in rejecting the Writ Petitions even though his clients were entitled for the reliefs sought by them.
6. Sri M.R. Achar, learned Government Advocate, sought to support the order of the learned Judge on the very reasons found by the learned Judge as also on other reasons to which we will refer at a later stage.
7. While the appellants claim that the payments made were in conformity with the orders made by the competent authorities, legal and just, the Respondents claim that the payments made were under a mistake of fact and were not backed by orders made by the competent authority and that in any event, there was no variation in the terms of the contract stipulating the rates of transportation of goods. But, still the DC proceeds to recover the amounts as arrears of land revenue. Apart from this, the appellants had also urged that the recoveries proposed to be made by the DC were in the absence of an agreement and a law authorising the same. Without examining these aspects that were urged by the appellants, the learned Judge, taking the view that the amounts were justly due to the State, has declined to interfere with the demands made by the DC, however, reserving liberty 10 the appellants to work out their legal remedies in an appropriate Civil Court.
8. At any rate, on the controversies raised by the appellants it is hazardous to hold that the amounts demanded from the appellants were legally and justly due to the State. From this it follows that the very premise on which the learned Judge had proceeded to reject the Writ Petitions was not well-founded. At the highest, all that can be said was that there were serious disputes between the parties. We must examine the cases on that basis, which we now proceed to do.
9. In the original agreements entered into between the parties, the rates bad been stipulated. According to the appellants, there was a variation of the terms of the contract and that variation provided for enhancement of the rates which is disputed by the respondents. Before us, the respondents have not produced any agreement enabling them to recover the amounts claimed by them as arrears of land revenue. In the absence of an agreement enabling the State to recover the amounts as arrears of land revenue, Section 190 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 or Sections of the Karnataka Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act of 1979 (Karnataka Act 16 of 1980) on which considerable reliance is placed by Sri Achar, cannot be invoked for recovering the disputed amounts as arrears of land revenue. On this short ground, the demands made and the action of the DC to recover the amounts as arrears of land revenue call for the interference of this Court.
10. As noticed earlier, the appellants do not admit the correctness of the claims made by the respondents. In that situation and in the absence (c)1 an agreement or law, it was not open to the DC to decide the same. As pointed out by a Full Bench of this Court in State of Mysore v. Rameshwara Rice Mills, RSA No. 311 of 1969 DD 15-9-1972 that power and function can only be properly exercised by a competent Civil Court or an authority authorised by law and not by the very authority that asserts the claim for and on behalf of the State. On the ratio of the ruling of this Court in Rameshwara Rice Mills' case, the demands made by the DC are wholly unauthorised and illegal.
11. What other legal proceedings should be initiated by the respondents is a matter for them to decide and initiate, which has necessarily to be decided on their own merits without reference to what we have decided in these cases.
12. In the result, we allow these appeals, set aside the order made by Doddakale Gowda, J., in Writ Petition Nos. 18727 to 18731 of 1983, allow those Writ Petitions and quash the orders impugned in those Writ Petitions.
13. Writ Appeals allowed.