ABRAHAM Vs. TAHSILDAR THODUPUZHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this original petition is one who bid in auction the right to harvest paddy cultivated by certain encroachers at Keerithode who were subsequently evicted. The grievance of the petitioner is against Exts. P-2, P-4 and P-5. The petitioner has also a grievance that he is threatened with prosecution for the failure to measure levy paddy which he has agreed to measure as per Ext P-1 agreement. The main question that arises for consideration is whether as long as the petitioner is not a "cultivator" as per the Kerala Rice and Paddy (Procurement by Levy) Order, 1966 for short the Levy Order, has be got any liability to measure levy under the Levy Order and can he be prosecuted under S.7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for not measuring levy.

(2.) The petitioner was the highest bidder of the right to harvest paddy from the evicted area in Keerithode sold by auction on 13-7-1973. The petitioner remitted the full bid amount of Rs. 3601/- and on 6-6-1973 executed Ext. P-1 agreement. As per Ext. P1 agreement the petitioner agreed to measure levy at the rates prescribed in the Levy Order. But, according to the petitioner he could not harvest the paddy as the encroachers themselves trespassed into the area and took the harvest. Then came Ext. P-2 notice from the 2nd respondent Village Officer, Idikki asking the petitioner to measure a levy of 153 quintals of paddy. The petitioner filed Ext. P3 objections before the 3rd respondent - Taluk Supply Officer, Thodupuzha requesting him to exempt him from liability to measure levy. But the 3rd respondent without adverting to the objections raised in Ext. P-3 directed the petitioner to measure 76.5 quintals of paddy by giving a reduction of 50%. Against Ext. P-4 the petitioner filed an appeal before the 4th respondent District Supply Officer, Idikki who by Ext. P-5 dismissed the same. The petitioner apprehends that at the instance of the respondents steps are in the offing for prosecuting the petitioner under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for alleged contravention of the Levy Order. It is under the above circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court with this original petition.

(3.) Shri K. Narayana Kurup, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the paddy agreed to be measured as levy by the petitioner as per Ext. P1 agreement is not the levy due to Government under the Levy Order, Learned counsel refers to Clause.3 of the Levy Order and contends that under the Levy Order only a cultivator can be asked to measure levy. As the petitioner was not a cultivator since he was only a bidder in auction of the right to harvest the paddy cultivated by the encroachers, according to the learned counsel, no liability whatsoever can be cast on the petitioner under the Levy Order to measure levy even though the petitioner has by Ext. P1 agreement agreed to measure levy Learned counsel then contends that if the petitioner has no liability under the Levy Order to measure levy by not measuring the levy agreed to by Ext. P1 agreement he will not be contravening any of the provisions under the Levy Order and hence no question of any prosecution under S.7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 arises because S.7 will be attracted only if the petitioner contravenes any of the provisions of the Levy Order or any other order issued under S.3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relies on P. A. Yoosuf v. Kumaranelloor Panchayat ( 1973 KLT 145 ) wherein my learned brother Balakrishna Eradi J. dealing with a case under the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 has said: