SANTOSH KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashment of the notification No. 5-20/96/29/1 dated 2-11-96 issued by the State Government directing the submission of the Levy of rice with minimum 50% of Arwa Rice or in the alternative to direct the respondents to recover the rice in levy as produced by the petitioner.

(2.) The State of Madhya Pradesh being of the opinion that for the purpose of procuring adequate quantities of rice for public distribution and for the purpose of securing the surplus rice available in the State for meeting requirements of other deficit States in the country, in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and with the prior concurrence of the Central Government promulgated "the M. P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Levy Order', 1970). According to clause 2(c) of the levy order 'Rice' means any variety of rice produced or manufactured by dehusking paddy in a rice mill worked by power; and includes rice equivalent of paddy held in stock. Under Clause-3 of the Levy Order, 1970, every licensed miller is bound to sell to the purchase officer at the price payable, in the manner referred to in Clause-4, such percentage,-(a) of the total quantity of rice produced or manufactured by him in his rice mill every day, or(b) of the total quantity of rice got milled by any person including a Licenced Dealer in his rice mill every day, or of such persons stock of paddy, as the case may be, as may be notified in the official Gazette by the State Government with the prior concurrence of the Central Government from time to time.Clause 2(c) read with Clause 3 clearly shows that the quantity of rice produced or manufactured, in the rice mill by the manufacturer or producer in a particular percentage, and the rice got milled by any person is subject to levy and the rice means any variety of rice produced or manufactured in rice mill worked by power.

(3.) The petitioner owns a rice mill named Shivnath Rice Mill with a licence No. 21/RJN/92, which was valid upto 31-12-1996 with a Grain Licence No. 211/R/92 which was also valid upto 31-12-96. According to the petitioner, he was manufacturing only par-boiled Rice in the rice mill. The petitioner under clause 3 of the levy order was obliged to sell 50% of the total quantity of rice produced or manufactured by him. The petitioner submits that he was ready and willing to submit the levy of whatever he was manufacturing or producing but the respondents were directing him to produce Arwa Rice and meet the requirements of the levy order. Annexure-P/1 dated 2-11-1996 directs that 50% of the levy shall be or Arwa rice. According to Annexure-P/1, 50% of the levy shall be of Arwa rice. The petitioner submits that in view of Annexure-P/1, he is being forced to produce Arwa Rice which he is not otherwise manufacturing. He submits that the petitioner manufactures par-boiled rice therefore, the demand of Arwa Rice from the petitioner is patently illegal. It is also submitted by him that manufacture of Arwa Rice requires a particular quality of paddy which is not available to the petitioner and the polishers available with the petitioner cannot be used for polishing Arwa Rice. He submits that demand of Arwa Rice from him is illegal.