N RAMALINGAIAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Petitioners as Rice Mill owners have challenged the validity of later portion of sub-clause (4) of Rule 8 of the Karnataka Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984, as amended from time to time.

(2.) Clause three of Levy Order compels a rice miller to sell 33 1/3 per cent of total quantity of rice by milling paddy owned by him in his rice mill every day to the purchase agents at purchase price. No stock of rice can be removed from the mill premises without delivering the rice relating to such stock. Every miller and every dealer who comes into possession of any stock of paddy or rice not being his own required to furnish particulars to the Enforcement Officer Vide clause 5. Clause 6 imposes a restriction not to transport to any place out-side the State rice in respect of which a Release Certificate has not been obtained. As per clause 8, after delivery of the rice, every licenced miller and a licenced dealer is required to make an application for the purpose of sale and/or transportation of levy free rice inside/outside the State in Form-C to the Deputy Commissioner for issue of a Release Certificate. On receipt of an application, the Deputy Commissioner shall issue a Release Certificate for movement and disposal of levy free rice in Form-D immediately or within ten days. Sub-clause (4) of clause 8 which reads thus:

(3.) Sri N. Devadas, learned Government Advocate, resisted the relief contending that the issue involved is no longer res- Integra and squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Khalimulla Khan v The State of Karnataka (I.L.R. 1986 Karnataka, 1641.).