STATE Vs. VEERAHANUMAN ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in these group of matters. As a short question is involved, by their consent all these appeals are treated to have been admitted and are being disposed of.

(2.) The learned single Judge having heard the parties in these group of matters has taken the view that for the purpose of the Karnataka Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 (for short referred to as 'Order 1984') as no purchase price has been prescribed there is no restriction to transport the broken rice as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It was further held that so long as the purchase price is not fixed and no levy is contemplated under the Order, 1984 for broken rice, there cannot be any restriction for its free movement. In case of dispute as to whether the rice in transit is broken rice or pucca rice, it is for the concerned authorities to decide in accordance with law.

(3.) Learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellant-authorities in this group of matters submitted that the absolute proposition laid down by the learned single Judge that no rice other than pucca rice can be covered by the sweep of the Levy Order 1984 is not well sustained. We may, therefore turn to the relevant provisions of the Levy Order 1984. The said Order 1984, defines 'rice' as per clause 2(k) to mean, any variety of dehusked polished, raw and parboiled rice and includes rice equivalent to paddy held in stock. The explanation to the said provision reads as under:-