GUDDODAGI AND COMPANY BIJAPUR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY these petitions, the petitioners have sought for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing Annexure-B an endorsement issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Food) respondents 3 and 4, to the Chamber of Commerce that in view of the amendment in the schedule the wholesaler, producer or the commission agent, neither of them can store nor keep in their possession the essential commodities namely rice or any other essential commodity as mentioned under Schedule IV, beyond the limit or extent prescribed therefor as amended by notification annexure-A. The petitioners have further sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to implement the notification Annexure-A as it is not applicable to the petitioners who are commission agents on behalf of the producers.

(2.) AS mentioned earlier, the petitioners claim themselves as commission agents and they assert to be selling agricultural produce within the jurisdiction of the Market Committee, bijapur, under the valid licence issued in their favour. The agriculturists approach the petitioners who are the commission agents for selling their respective produces in the market and as soon as the agricultural produce arrives at the market yard, petitioners store the agricultural produce in their respective godowns. They claim to be acting as commission agents on behalf of the producers. On October 21, 1991, a notification was issued in exercise of powers under Section 3 (5) of the Essential commodities Act (Central Act 10 of 1955) by the State government of Karnataka making amendments in Schedule IV to the Karnataka Essential Commodities Licensing Order, 1986 with reference to Item No. 1, sub-items (b) and (d) and substituted for expression 250 quintals, expression 1000 quintals with reference to rice in sub-item (b) and with reference to sub-item i. e. , Gur, it was mentioned that so far as Gur is concerned, expression 500 quintals shall be substituted for expression 250 quintals. The Chamber of Commerce sought a clarification and in reply thereof endorsement 'b' (Annexure-B)was issued stating that the notification also applies to the commission agents. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed these petitions for the above directions.

(3.) APPEARANCE has been put up on behalf of the opposite parties by Sri B. G. Sridharan, learned Counsel, on behalf of respondent 2 and by Sri. R. K. Hatti, learned Government pleader for respondents 1, 3 and 4, The learned Counsel for the opposite parties urged that this question only involves construction and interpretation of notification and therefore the petitions can be disposed of after the arguments.