LAKSHMINARASIMHAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question that falls for consideration in this batch of writ petitions is the interpretation of clause 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) and Restriction on Sale Order, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as "the Order"). Common arguments have been addressed by the counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is unnecessary to refer to the facts in each of the writ petitions; it would suffice if I state the facts in Writ Petition No. 3637 / 1980. The petitioners in this writ petition are dealers in foodgrains, holding licences under the Andhra Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order. they do business in Nellore and Prakasarn districts. They purchase rice and broken-rice from millers and dealers, who have already paid the levy in accordance with the 1967 Order. Some of the petitioners also purchase paddy and get the same milled; and when they do so, they deliver the appropriate percentage towards levy, and sell the remaining rice and broken rice, in accordance with the permits issued by the appropriate authority prescribed by the . 967 Order. The balance of the rice called "levy-free rice" is moved from the premises of the Rice Mill, in accordance with the permits issued under the Order. The authorities, however, are not only insisting upon permits on the first sale, but also upon permits for the second and subsequent sales of levy-free rice, which is not warranted by the provisions of the Order. It is submitted that insisting upon obtaining of permits for second and subsequent sales and for movement of the rice is not only illegal, but inteferes with the free movement of trade, attracting constitutional ban contained in Part-XIlI of the Constitution ID the above circumstances, the petitioners ask for issuance of an appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the respondents and their subordinates not to demand the petitioners to take out permits for the resale and second Bales, or to demand the same for transport of second sale of rice or broken rice. Some of the petitioners in other writ petitions, it may be mentioned, are millers too.

(2.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated-after referring to Clauses 3 and 4 of the 1967 Order-that during the crop year 19/9-80 due to adverse seasonal conditions and drought in most of the areas in the State, the Government had issued the Memorandum dated 30-10-1979, which came into effect from 1-11-1979, whereunder it was ordered to allow movement of stocks of levy free rice only on permits by those millers or dealers who deliver 25% of the rice, under Clauses 3 and 4 of the Order. Another Memorandum was issued earlier on 5 ,12-1977, directing that secondary who sale dealers can move their stocks only after obtaining permits from the Collectors. This was clarified in the proceedings of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, dated 4-2-1978, to the effect that such of those secondary wholesale dealers who purchase levy-free stocks from the millers/dealers, Who have paid levy, Can sell their stock only after obtaining permits from the Collector. The contention of the petitioners that they have purchased the rice and broken-rice from the milters and dealers who have already delivered the levy-rice, is denied. It is pointed out that there have been several instances where the millers and dealers with a view to evade the delivery of levy rice have been manipulating accounts showing that they have purchased levy-free stocks, and are moving the rice under that guise without obtaining permits. This has been affecting the procurement of levy rice and, to check the said practice, the Governrrent has devised the method, by which any person who alleges that he has purchased levy-free rice from the millers and dealers and who wishes to sell or move the stock for a second time, is required to produce documents to the effect that he has purchased levy-free stock from the miller/dealer, and a permit has also to be obtained from the Collector for moving such rice. This is intended as a check on the millers and dealers seeking to evade the delivery of levy rice. It is denied that the Commissioner had directed or issued any instructions on 12-1-1978 not to adopt permit system. It is submitted that the instructions issued in the Memorandum dated 4-2-1978, and other instructions, are conceived in public interest and for efficient working of the public distribution system and have, therefore, got to be observed by the petitioners.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners put forward the following contentions: (i) that, the only permits which the millers or dealers have to obtain are those mentioned in Clause 4 of the Order. No further restrictions can be imposed by the Government, by means of Proceedings or Memorandums, which are neither issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, nor under any other statutory authority. The Memorandums and instructions relied upon in the counter-affidavit have also not been published in the Gazette and, therefore, the petitioners are not bound by the same; (ii) the said Memorandums or instructions cannot be justified and are not within the purview of sub clause (3) of Clause 4 of the 1967 Order. Since they travel beyond the purview of the 1967 Order itself, the petitioners are not bound to obey them; (iii) the insistence upon obtaining of permits for second sales and movement of rice, violates the guarantee contained in Art. 301 of the Constitution of India. No law has been made either by the Parliament, or by the Legislature of the State, with in the meaning of Art. 302, or Art. 304; and (iv) that, since the authorities have enough powers under the 1967 Order to ensure compliance with the substantive provisions thereof, the additional requirement of obtaining permits for second and subsequent sales is wholly unjustified. Such a restriction is not necessary for ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Order.