- (1.)THE petitioner in this case questions the legalitv of Clause 4 of the Madhya pradesh Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order, 1965 (hereinafter referred to at the order) and prays that the said provision be declared to be invalid and a direction be issued to the opponent-State restraining it from enforcing the provision.
(2.)ACCORDING to the applicant, he holds a licence under the Foodgrains Dealers licensing Order, 1965, which entitles him to deal in foodgrairis and that until the promulgation of the Order he and other licence holders like him used to purchase paddy, get it milled in the shelter type rice mills and used to sell the rice thus produced to the Government at prices fixed by the Government. The Madhya pradesh Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order, 1965, was promulgated by the Government on 9th December 1965 in the exercise of its powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 Clause 2 (b) of the Order defines "dealer" thus-'dealer' means a person engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale in any quantity of paddy, whether on one's own account or in partnership or in associa tion with any other person or as a commission agent or kacha arhtiya or pacca arhtiya and whether or not in conjunction with any other business but does not include an owner of a shelter type rice mill. " clause 4 of the Order runs as follows: "4 Purchase by State -- (1) No agriculturist shall sell paddy to any person except to a consumer in rural areas for bona fide consumption up to 20 Kilograms at a time and to the Director of Food Supplies or the collector or p. person or persons as may be authorised by the Director of food Supplies or the Collector, in this behalf. (2) No dealer except the owner of a shelter type rice mill shall purchase or possess paddy for business purposes and stocks held by him on the date of application of this Order shall be sold at the rate specified in sub-clause (1) of Clause 3 of this order, to the Director of Food Supplies or the Collector or any other person authorised by the Director of Food supplies or the Collector in this behalf"
(3.)THE petitioner's contention is that Clause 4 of the Order is in excess of the authority conferred on the Government under Section 3 of the Essential commodities Act, 1955. and that it imposes unreasonable restrictions on the petitioner's right to trade in paddy and is also violative of Article 14 of the constitution