KHALIMULLA KHAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these petitions, some of the petitioners are dealers and others are millers and one of them is a grower i.e., the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 19593 of 1984.

(2.) In all these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the validity of Sub-clauses (f) & (i) of Clause 2; Sub-clauses (i), 3 and 4 of Clause 3; Sub-clauses (1) (b), (2) and (3) of Clause 4 ; and Clauses 6, 8, 9 and 10 and also Form 'D' of the Karnataka Rice Procurement Levy Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Levy Order,') on the ground that they impose unreasonable restriction on the right to trade and as such, the same are violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

(3.) One of the petitioners, viz., the petitioner in W.P. 19593/84 is a grower. He is a resident of Coorg district. According to his case, neither the paddy grown by him nor the rice obtained therefrom has market in the State of Karnataka, therefore, the petitioner has to necessarily transport the paddy or the rice outside the State ; that the Levy Order prohibits transporting of paddy outside the State, and as far as the rice obtained from such paddy is concerned, the petitioner is a cultivator not a dealer or a miller, as there is no provision in the Levy Order enabling a grower to transport the rice outside the State ; therefore, the Levy Order imposes unreasonable restriction on his right to enjoy the property.