D.S. Mathur, J. - (1.) A common question as to the validity of the UP Rice and Paddy (Levy)(Third Amendment) Order, 1969 (to be referred hereinafter as the Third Amendment Order) is involved in these seventeen Writ Petitions by the various licensed millers and licensed dealers. It is on account of the alleged higher percentage of recovery of rice from paddy prescribed in the Third Amendment Order that the licensed millers have to contribute more towards the 60% levy of rice. Similarly, licensed leaders who give paddy to rice mills and get rice after milling shall have to pay a higher levy in case the recovery is deemed to be more than the actual one. Both the licensed millers and the licensed dealers are, therefore, affected by the Third Amendment Order in the same manner.
(2.) THE Third Amendment Order added Sub -clause (8) to Clause 3 of the UP Rice and Paddy (Levy) Order, 1968 (to be referred hereinafter as the Rice Levy Order) and Schedules II and II thereto were substituted by fresh Schedules. Sub -clause (8) runs as below: (8) The percentages of rice recovered from milling of corresponding variety of paddy shall be deemed to be as follows and the levy due under this clause shall be calculated accordingly: per cent per centBasmati Superior 62 62(export quality) Basmati 64 65Other varieties of 66 67 rice Provided that the State Government may, in public interest, reduce the percentage of recovery in respect of any area or in relation to any variety or grade of paddy. Prior to the incorporation of Sub -clause (8) 60% levy on rice was paid on the actual recovery of rice and not on any percentage basis, but since after the enforcement of the Third Amendment Order the 60% levy is demanded on the recovery as laid down in the above sub -clause. The Petitioners' case is that the recovery of rice in their mills is much less than the prescribed ones and hence they are being unnecessarily encumbered with a higher levy. They have challenged the validity of this sub -clause.
(3.) THE Rice Levy Order was made with the prior concurrence of the Central Government in exercise of the delegated powers Under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It was mentioned before the Court that the Rice Levy Order was made Under Clauses (f) and (j) of Section 3(2) of the Essential Commodities Act. These clauses are as below: (f) For requiring any person holding in stock any essential commodity to sell the whole or a specified part of the stock to the Central Government or a State Government or to an officer or agent of such Government or to such other person or class of persons and in such circumstances as may be specified in the order; * * * * (j) for any incidental and supplementary matters, including in particular the entering and search of premises, vehicles, vessels and aircraft and the seizure by a person authorized to make such search of any articles in respect of which such person has reason to believe that a contravention of the order has been, is being, or is about to be committed.;