Price control under the Essential Commodities Act includes notified pricing, making levy sale orders valid subject to exemption conditions.

Millers who merely process third-party paddy may claim exemption from levy obligations only if they satisfy the prescribed disclosure and custody conditions; absent proof of compliance, relief is premature. The Essential Commodities Act was read as authorising regulation of production, manufacture, price control, and compulsory sale of stock to the Government, so a levy order requiring sale of a specified portion of rice at a notified price was held to be within delegated power. The pricing mechanism was also treated as part of price control, because "control" was construed broadly to include price regulation by notification. The levy and procurement scheme therefore remained valid subject to proved exemption conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether millers who merely mill third-party paddy for hire and do not own the paddy or rice can be compelled under the levy order to sell levy rice. (ii) Whether the levy order was within the scope of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. (iii) Whether the use of a notified price under the levy scheme was beyond the power to control prices under the Act.

Issue (i): Whether millers who merely mill third-party paddy for hire and do not own the paddy or rice can be compelled under the levy order to sell levy rice.

Analysis: The levy order was read as applying to millers carrying on rice milling operations, but the exemption for millers handling third-party paddy was recognised where the requirements relating to disclosure and proof of custody were satisfied. The challenge was premature because the petitioners had not first established compliance with the exemption conditions before the authorities. The admitted position in the counter-affidavit also showed that such millers were exempt if they complied with the relevant sub-clause.

Conclusion: No present right to relief was shown, and the writ petitions were premature on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the levy order was within the scope of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act.

Analysis: The Act authorises regulation of production and manufacture, control of price, and requiring sale of stock to the Government or its agent. The levy order operated within these fields by imposing only a partial levy and by requiring sale of a specified percentage at the notified price. The Court rejected the argument that the State had acted in excess of delegated power.

Conclusion: The levy order was intra vires and valid.

Issue (iii): Whether the use of a notified price under the levy scheme was beyond the power to control prices under the Act.

Analysis: The expression control was held to be of wide amplitude and to include regulation of price through notification. The notified price was treated as part of the price-control mechanism and not as an impermissible departure from Section 3(2)(c). The Court disagreed with the contrary view of another High Court and held that the pricing mechanism under the levy order fell within statutory control.

Conclusion: The notified-price mechanism was within the power to control prices.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the procurement and levy scheme failed, and the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, the power to control prices includes regulation by notification, and a levy order requiring sale of a specified portion of rice at a notified price is a valid exercise of delegated authority, subject to any proved exemption conditions.

---