N J THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These cases have been heard together since they raise the same questions, the appellants before us being petitioners who had unsuccessfully sought of a single Judge of this court, Gopalan Nambiyar, J., the very reliefs that the petitioners before us seek of us.

(2.) The petitioners - we use this word to include also the appellants are paddy cultivators of the Kuttanad area who have been served with notices under Clause.4 of the Kerala Rice and Paddy (Procurement by Levy), Order, 1965 (the Levy Order for short), an order made by the State Government under R.125 of the Defence of India Rules, requiring them to sell specified quantities of paddy to the persons named in the notices at prices not exceeding the prices fixed by the Kerala Paddy (Maximum Prices) Order, 1965, an order made by the State Government under S.3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in pursuance of a delegation made by the Central Government under S.5. Their complaint was that, while the levy is too high, the prices are too low. It is now confined to the levy they have, with leave of court, reserved their fight regarding the prices for another day, and this they propose to do by means of separate petitions. We need therefore concern ourselves only with the levy.

(3.) The levy is made under Clause.3 of the Levy Order at scales notified from time to time. The latest of these notifications is one dated the 14th February 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the notification) and it is this notification that the petitioners now challenge, although, when they brought the petitions, it was the notification then in force. By this notification, Government classified the paddy lands in this State (with reference to the Taluks in which they are situate) into four categories, A, B, C and D in order of descending productivity and fixed descending scales of levy accordingly. The petitioners' grievance is that their lands, which are capable of producing only about 1960 pounds of paddy per acre in a normal season in this season, it is said, there has been a general failure of crops, but we may point out that the Levy Order, by the second proviso to Clause.3, makes provision for a reduction of the levy when there is a failure of crops and should therefore be in category C have been placed in category A as lands capable of producing more than 2250 pounds per acre. Further, no note has been taken of the circumstance that, owing to the special mode of cultivation and harvest in the Kuttanad area, wages customarily payable in paddy are much higher there than in the remaining areas of the State. The result is that the levy is harsh and oppressive so far as the petitioners are concerned. It is of much more than they can spare there is however no allegation that it is of more than they produce. In fact, so runs the complaint, it is of more than what would be left with them after paying harvesting and other wages customarily payable in paddy so that they would have nothing left for seed and for their own domestic consumption. In short, the levy is discriminatory and is an unreasonable restriction on their right to hold and enjoy property.