BIJOY KUMAR ROUTRAI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These nine applications have been made under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the vires of the Orissa Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order. 1974 made by the State Government of Orissa in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), read with the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Agriculture (Department of Food) No. G.S.R.-316 (E), dated the 20th June, 1972. The petitioners have made different allegations on questions of fact, such as the quantity of land possessed, the nature of such land, the quantum of levy demanded et cetera to which we shall advert at the appropriate place. But common questions of law have been pleaded and argued by these petitioners and on behalf of the State Government, resistance has been offered to these applications on common grounds of law. These applications have been heard together. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of all these applications by a common judgment.

(2.) The State Government of Orissa by notification dated 19th of November, 1974, promulgated an order called the Orissa Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order, 1974 (hereafter referred to as the 'Order') in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereafter called the 'Act') as delegated in its favour by the Central Government vide the notification dated 20th June, 1972, under Section 5 thereof. The requisitioning authority in exercise of powers vested under Clause 3 of the Order issued notices requiring the petitioners to sell and deliver to the persons named in the notices at the declared price within the time indicated in such notices the quantity of paddy shown therein. Most of the petitioners preferred appeals as provided under Clause 9 of the Order to the Tahasildar. In some cases, the Tahasildar after making such enquiries as he found necessary reduced the demand, in some other cases he sustained the demand, while yet in some instances he even enhanced the demand. We propose to deal with the legal contentions first and thereafter advert to the facts of each case.

(3.) The following contentions have been raised on behalf of the petitioners in support of their challenge regarding the ultra vires character of the Order:-