JOE PEREIRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in all these petitions are similar and the question raised is also common, and therefore, these petitions shall stand disposed of by this order.

(2.) For the purpose of determining the question, we may conveniently refer to the facts in W. P. No. 475 of 1973. The petitioner therein is a coffee planter and also holds some agricultural lands. Respondent-3, Tahsildar has called upon the petitioner to sell 68 quintals and 82-1/2 Kgs. of paddy to the agent of the State Government, that is, Large Scale Co-operative Society, Sakleshpur by the notice issued under the Karnataka Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order, 1966 (hereinafter called as "the Levy Order"). In the Levy Order, the price of paddy of different varieties has been fixed under the schedule thereunder. The rate for the variety of paddy to be surrendered by the petitioner prescribed therein was Rs. 52/- per quintal. It was the same rate payable or paid to all the petitioners. The common contention of the petitioners was that that price was not a statutory price which they ought to have been paid for the paddy surrendered by them. They have accordingly questioned the validity of the Levy Order, and in particular, the price fixed thereon. They have further questioned the validity of S. 3(3-B) of the Act, but at the time of hearing, counsel for the petitioners have given up that contention.

(3.) In order to determine the question we have to refer S. 3(3-B) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter called as "the Act"). S. 3(3-B) of the Act as it existed during the relevant time provides: