STATE OF M P Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent the State of Madhya Pradesh and its functionaries have called in question the soundness of judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5151/96.

(2.) IN order to procure adequate quantity of rice for public distribution and for the purpose of securing the surplus rice available in the State for meeting requirement of the deficit in other States of the country, the State of M. P. in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Sections 3 and 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and with prior concurrence of the Central Government promulgated 'the M. P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Levy Order' ). 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 of the total quantity of rice produced or manufactured by him in his rice mill every day, or of the total quantity of rice get milled by any person including a Licensed Dealer in his rice mill every day, or of such person's 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.

(3.) THE respondent No. 1, the writ petitioner, owns a rice mill, namely, Shivnath Rice Mill having a Licence No. 21/rjn/92 which was valid upto 31-12-1996 with a grain Licence No. 211/r/92. According to the petitioner he was required only to produce Par boiled rice in the rice mill. As per the stipulation in the Levy Order, he was under obligation to sell 50% of the total quantity of rice produced or manufactured by him. The petitioner had no grievance and he was ready and willing to submit the levy of whatever, he was manufacturing or producing but the State authority asked him to submit 50% of the Levy as Arwa Rice and meet the requirement of the Levy Order, vide Annexure-P-1 dated 2-11-1996. By such a direction the petitioner was compelled to produce Arwa' Rice which is not otherwise manufactured by him. It was also putforth by the writ petitioner that manufacture of Arwa Rice requires a particular quantity of paddy which is not available to the petitioner and the polishers which are available with the petitioner could not be used for polishing Arwa Rice and, therefore the demand made by the State was unjustified.