SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1980 Supreme(AP) 359

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.P.JEEVAN REDDY
PANUGANTI LAKSHMINARASIMHAM - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P., REPRESENTED BY THE District Collector, NELLORE - Respondent
Decided On : 12-31-80

The specific requirements for obtaining permits for sales of levy-free rice and the entitlement of authorities to verify compliance with the Order.

Headnote:

permit - sales of levy-free rice - summary of legal provisions

Fact of the Case:

The court disposed of the writ petitions with specific directions and no order as to costs.

Finding of the Court:

The court provided directions regarding the requirement of permits for sales of levy-free rice.

Issues: Interpretation of the legal provisions related to permits for sales of levy-free rice.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the specific requirements for obtaining permits and the entitlement of authorities to verify compliance with the Order.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were disposed of with specific directions and no order as to costs.

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE main question that falls for consideration in this batch of writ petitions is the interpretation of clause 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Rice procurement (Levy) and Restriction on Sale Order, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as "the Order" ). Common arguments have been addressed by the counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is unnecessary to refer to the facts in each of the writ petitions; it would suffice if I state the facts in Writ petition No. 3637 / 1980. The petitioners in this writ petition are dealers in foodgrains, holding licences under the Andhra Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers licensing Order. they do business in Nellore and Prakasarn districts. They purchase rice and broken-rice from millers and dealers, who have already paid the levy in accordance with the 1967 Order. Some of the petitioners also purchase paddy and get the same milled; and when they do so, they deliver the appropriate percentage towards levy, and sell the remaining rice and broken rice, in accordance with the permits issued by the appropriate authority prescribed by the. 967 Order. The balance of the rice called "levy-free rice" is moved from the premises of the Rice Mill, in accordance with the permits issued under the Order. The authorities, however, are not only insisting upon permits on the first sale, but also upon permits for the second and subsequent sales of levy-free rice, which is not warranted by the provisions of the Order. It is submitted that insisting upon obtaining of permits for second and subsequent sales and for movement of the rice is not only illegal, but inteferes with the free movement of trade, attracting constitutional ban contained in Part-XIli of the Constitution ID the above circumstances, the petitioners ask for issuance of an appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the respondents and their subordinates not to demand the petitioners to take out permits for the resale and second Bales, or to demand the same for transport of second sale of rice or broken rice. Some of the petitioners in other writ petitions, it may be mentioned, are millers too.

( 2 ) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated-after referring to Clauses 3 and 4 of the 1967 Order-that during the crop year 19/9-80 due to adverse seasonal conditions and drought in most of the areas in the State, the Government had issued the Memorandum dated 30-10-1979, which came into effect from 1-11-1979, whereunder it was ordered to allow movement of stocks of levy free rice only on permits by those millers or dealers who deliver 25% of the rice, under Clauses 3 and 4 of the Order. Another Memorandum was issued earlier on 5 ,12-1977, directing that secondary who sale dealers can move their stocks only after obtaining permits from the Collectors. This was clarified in the proceedings of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, dated 4-2-1978, to the effect that such of those secondary wholesale dealers who purchase levy-free stocks from the millers/dealers, Who have paid levy, Can sell their stock only after obtaining permits from the Collector. The contention of the petitioners that they have purchased the rice and broken-rice from the milters and dealers who have already delivered the levy-rice, is denied. It is pointed out that there have been several instances where the millers and dealers with a view to evade the delivery of levy rice have been manipulating accounts showing that they have purchased levy-free stocks, and are moving the rice under that guise without obtaining permits. This has been affecting the procurement of levy rice and, to check the said practice, the Governrrent has devised the method, by which any person who alleges that he has purchased levy-free rice from the millers and dealers and who wishes to sell or move the stock for a second time, is required to produce documents to the effect that he has purchased levy-free stock from the miller/dealer, and a permit has also to be obtained fro














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top