K ANJANEYULU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is not a miller but he is a dealer in rice. He holds a licence under the Andhra Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order. He purchases rice from millers and sells the same in the market after contributing the prescribed percentage towards procurement levy under Andhra Pradesh Rice (Procurement Levy and Restriction on Sale) Order, 1967. He also purchases paddy, gets it handpounded into rice and sells the handpounded rice in the market. He has not been contributing any part of the handpounded rice towards Procurement levy. He has, however, been regularly submitting returns under the Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order in Form C, in which he has always been showing the milled rice and handpounded rice separately with full particulars. All these several years, never did the authorities call upon the petitioner to contribute a percentage of handpounded rice also towards procurement levy. These facts are undisputed. While so, on the night of 1-3-1975 the Sub-Collector, District Supply Officer, Grain Purchasing Officer inspected the petitioners business premises and seized certain quantities of foodgrains on the ground that the petitioner had not subscribed any percentage of handpounded rice towards procurement levy. Next day, that is on 2-3-1975 the Collector passed an order of detention under Maintenance of Internal Security Act and the petitioner was arrested. The petitioner seeks the intervention of this court to claim his liberty.

(2.) The substance of the allegation contained in the sole ground of detention is that between 6-10-1973 and 1-3-1975 the petitioner got converted Q. 786.C44 of paddy into rice (by handpounding) and obtained Q. 495.053/4 of rice, that hews bound to deliver a certain percentage of that rice to the agent of the Government under Clause 3 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement Levy and Restriction on sale Order, that he did not do so and that thereby he rendered essential foodgrains unavailable for the public distribution system at a fair price. It was further alleged that he had sold the handpounded rice at the exorbitant rate of Rs. 3.20 per kg.

(3.) The order of detention was attacked by Sri P. Babul Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner on two grounds (1)Clause 3 (2) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Rice Procurement Levy and Restriction of Sale Order, 1967 did not apply to handpounded rice. (2) Even if it did, it was never so understood either by the dealers or by the concerned officials. It was an abuse of the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act to make an order of detention merely because the concerned officials suddenly changed their views. Sri P. Babul Reddy also drew my attention to the circumstances that though the petitioner had a turn of Rs. 18 lakhs in milled rice there was not even the whisper of an allegation against him in regard to the business relating to milled rice.