A rice-miller who sells rice after milling is a dealer as defined under the Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order, 1960, and a Notification fixing stock limits for rice-millers is not discriminatory if it is designed to prevent hoarding of rice.

S. K. MAL LODHA, J.

( 1 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate on July 18, 1983. we reached the conclusion that this appeal had no merits and it was accordingly, dismissed. We ordered that the reasons in support of the order will be recorded later on.

( 2 ) NOW, we proceed to set out the reasons in support of the conclusion, which we had reached.

( 3 ) THE appellant who was petitioner in the writ petition ander Article 226 of the Constitution, has filed this appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. questioning the correctness of the order dt. Jan. 20, 1983 of the learned single Judge of this Court, by which he dismissed S. B. Civil Writ petition No. 176 of 1983 in limine.

( 4 ) THE appellant hereinafter will be referred to ms the petitioner and the respondents State of Rajasthan and Union of India, will be referred to as the non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 respectively.

( 5 ) THE petitioner M/s. Nay Bharat Rice and General Mills. Industrial Area. Hanumangarh Junction, is a partnership firm. A rice mill was erected by the petitioner for doing the work of rice milling. It has obtained a licence under the Rice-Milling Industry (Regulation) Act (No. XXI of 1958 ). After comma into force of the Raiasthan Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1982. the petitioner is required to give 50% levy to the State Government and after giving the delivery of this levy it is entitled to sell the remaining 50% of the rice in the market,

( 6 ) NOTIFICATION No. F. 17 (III) Kha. VI/vidhi/80 was published in the Raiasthan Gazette. Extraordinary, on Dec. 24, 1982. Under the said Notification, which was issued in exercise of the powers given under Cl. 18 of the Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licencing and Con-troll Order, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Order), it is provided that a wholesale seller and rice-miller could not keep in stock at one time more than the quantity specified therein. The limit was shown as 1000 qtis. for Urban (Municipal) area and 500 qtls. for rural (Panchayat) area. This Notification was made effective from Dec. 31, 1982. The District Rice-Millers Association, made a representation on Dec. 31, 1982 before the Pood Commissioner. Raiasthan. Jaipur, praying therein that the rice-millers may be exempted from the Notification. which prescribes the stock limits for the rice-millers. No reply was received from the State Government as well as the Food Commissioner. The petitioner filed the writ petition on Jan. 18, 1983. challenging the aforesaid Notification, which has been marked as Ex. 3.

( 7 ) THE learned single Judge, by his order dt. Jan. 20, 1983. rejected the writ petition summarily. The petitioner, therefore, lodged this special appeal as aforesaid.

( 8 ) A show cause notice was ordered to be issued to the non-petitioners. On July 6, 1983. Mr. S. N. Sharma. learned counsel for the petitioner stated that Union of India has been impleaded as pro forma party-respondent for the reason that the Notification Ex. 3 has been issued after the concurrence of the Central Government. He farther submitted that for the final disposal of the appeal. Union of India, is not a necessary party as the Notification (Ex. 3) has been issued by the State Government. This was not disputed by Mr. H. N. Calla. learned Government Advocate. On that day. Mr. S. N, Sharma. learned counsel for the appellant stated that this special appeal may be disposed of finally at the admission stage. As Mr. Calla. learned Govt. Advocate. had no objection, we ordered that the special appeal shall be disposed of finally at the admission stage. Learned Government. Advocate filed re-ply on July 14, 1983 contesting? the writ petition. 9. We heard Mr. S. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal and Mr. H. N. Calla. learned Government Advocate.

( 9 ) MR. S. N. Sharma contended that the petitioner is manufacturer of rice and therefore, it does not fall within the d