- (1.) THE petitioner owns and runs a flour mill. It also holds a licence in forms B and F under the U. P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964. Licence in form B is to carry on the business in foodgrains in wholesale and licence in form F entitles a person to carry on the business in foodgrains as a commission agent. Under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Uttar Pradesh Government issued the Uttar Pradesh Wheat (Levy) Order, 1974. Section 3 of this Order requires that every licensed dealer shall sell to the Food Corporation of India or to the State Government at the scheduled price 50 per cent of Wheat in his stock on the date of the commencement of the Order. The petitioner has been required to sell 50 per cent of the stock in his possession on 17th April, 1974 as levy quota. The petitioner is aggrieved and has challenged that order.
(2.) NOW , as noticed earlier, the levy Order is applicable to every licensed dealer. A "Licensed Dealer" has been defined in Section 2 (d) to mean a person holding a valid licence under the Uttar Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964. On the petitioner's own showing (as mentioned in paragraph 4 of the writ petition), he holds a license in forms 'B' and 'F' under the U. P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964, He was thus clearly liable to sell to the Government 50 per cent of his stock as levy. The petitioner's contention is that even if he originally held a licence in Forms B and F under the provisions of the U. P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964, the licences stood revoked on the promulgation of the U. P. Wheat and Wheat Products (Regulation of Trade and Control of Movement) Order, 1973. Reliance is placed upon Section 5 of the order, which provides:- "5 (1)- The Provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964 in so far as they relate to licensing of Wholesalers and Commission Agents in respect of wheat and wheat products are hereby rescinded and accordingly on and from the date of commencement of this order- (a) all licences in Forms 'B and 'F' of the Uttar Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964 shall become void in so far as they relate to wheat and/or wheat products . . . . . ." It is true that as a result of the above mentioned provision, the licences in forms 'B' and 'F' held by the petitioner became inoperative but the Uttar Pradesh Government subsequently issued another Order, called the Uttar Pradesh Wheat and Wheat Products (Regulation of Trade and Control of Movement) Order, 1974, Section 10 whereof provide:- "10. The Uttar Pradesh Wheat and Wheat Products (Regulation of Trade and Control of Movement) Order, 1973, is hereby rescinded and the provisions of Sections 6, 8 and 24 of the U. P. General Clauses Act 1904 shall apply in relation to the repeal of an enactment by an Uttar Pradesh Act. (2) Notwithstanding the amendment of the Uttar Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers' (Licensing) Order, 1964, Clause 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Wheat and Wheat Products (Regulation of Trade and Control of Movement) Order, 1973 all licences in Form (B) or Form (F) granted under the Uttar Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1973 shall with effect from the date of commencement of this Order, be deemed to have revived and to become valid in respect of wheat and wheat products also." So these provisions completely nullify the original provisions of the U. P. Wheat and Wheat Products (Regulation of Trade and Control of Movement) Order, 1973 and the licences held by the petitioner under the 1964 Order is revived. The petitioner once again has become a licensed dealer and was so at the time of the promulgation of the levy Order, 1974.
(3.) THE petitioner's next contention is that he had purchased wheat for preparation of wheat products and the stock held by him on the relevant date was not for sale and, as such, the provisions of the levy Order could not apply to him. It is not possible to accept this contention. Maybe that the petitioner had purchased the stock of wheat for the purposes of his own consumption in flour mill and had no intention to sell it but that fact makes no difference inasmuch as the levy Order becomes applicable when two conditions are satisfied (1) that the person concerned is a licensed dealer in foodgrains and (2) he held stock of wheat on the 17th April, 1974. All stock of wheat possessed by a licensed dealer whether meant for resale or for consumption are subject to levy. The intention of the licensed dealer is wholly immaterial. May be that the levy Order is likely to result in hardship to certain persons like the petitioner but that by itself is no ground for holding that the Levy Order is not applicable.;