State of Up & Ors Etc v. Sri Laxman Rice Mills and Ors. Etc.

Leave granted. . We have heard learned cow1sel on both sides. These appeals by speci al leave arise from various orders of the Division Bench of the A llahabad High Court, made on F ebruary 27, 1996 etc. in Writ Petition No. 31392/95 etc. The only controversy is : whether the existing stock of rice on .the H intervening night of 30th September and 1st October 1995 was liable to levy 374 .. ... STATE v. SRI LAXMAN RlCE MlLLS 375 under the U.P. Rice and Paddy (Levy and Regulation of Trade) 9rder, A 1985. Exercising the power under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, with the concurrence _of the Central Governm ent, the .'appellant had issued the said Order imposing levy on rice effective from the intervening night of September 30, 1995 and Octob er 1, 1995. This is in furtherance of clau se (3) of the Levy Order. It is contended by the learned counsel for B the appellant that since the levy was effective from the aforesaid period within the areas specified -under the ord er, all the ric~ mills covered are subject to the above notification. The High Court was not right in directing ' ~ that the Order will be effective from Octoher 1, 1995 and that the direction I that the existing stock as on the intervening night of the said dates is not ./ liable to levy is vitiated by error of law. We find no force in the contention. c Clause 24 of the Order gives power to exempt as under : n(l) With the concurrence of the Central Government , the State Gov~rnment may - (a) in. the public intere st increa se or reduc~ the percentage of levy; \ (b) in the publi~ interest exempt any area from levy or reduce per cent; (c) in the public interest reduce the percentage of levy from any E type of rice mill in any area; (d) exempt wholly or partly from levy and variety of paddy and rice." It is seen that by proceedings dated May 31, 1996 the Principal F Secretary to the Government had conveyed to all the authorities concerned the decision of the Government, namely, "I am directed to say that levy is lifted in U.P. from rice for rest of the Kharif 1994-95 till 30.9.1995 with immediate effect." Thus, it would be seen that the rice stock existing with rice millers G as on September 30, 1995, in other words, all purchase made/rice produced by the rice millers upto that date, i.e., September 30, 1995 stood exempted. While issuing the levy order, the exemption order was not withdrawn. .. Consequently levy order issued in exercise of-clause (3) of the Order for the Kharif Season 1995-% effective from midflight of September 30, 1995 H 376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997} 1 S.C.R. A including .the stock on hand as on that date, is not legal for the limited stock on band, namely, the stock existing with the rice millers as on the intervenitlg night of September 30, 1995 and October 1, 1995. To that extent only the ·exemption would operate and the levy order would become effective iit respect of all purchases made/rice produced on and from the B day break of October 1, 1995. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs. G.N. Appeals arc disposed of.