TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1974 (8) TMI 135
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....paddy to their mills for milling purposes and therefore when they do not produce or manufacture rice" they cannot he called upon to sell particular percentage of rice milled at their respective mills under the rice levy system. Therefore, what they contend is this rice levy applies only to dealers and not to millers who have no licence to carry on trade in rice. It is their case that they only collect milling charges and nothing more. 3. Mr. Babulu Reddy the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the petitions strenuously contended relying upon the decision of Chinnappa Reddy J. in W. -P. No. 1291 of 1968 and batch dated 22-3-1968 that it is contrary to the requirements of the Procurement Order to call upon millers, who were not dealers and who only mill paddy on receipt of hire charges, to sell levy rice to an agent or officer duly authorised by the Govt. at the notified price. It is, therefore, necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Procurement Order and the Essential Commodities Act. 4. The Government of Andhra Pradesh by virtue of the powers conferred upon it by clause (f) of sub-section (2) read with sub-sections (3), (3-B) and (5) of Section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the millers in these petitions that they do not produce rice but they only mill paddy brought to them for conversion into rice. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by an Assistant Secretary to the Government it is admitted by him that clause 3 (1) is in general terms and that such of those millers who mill third party's paddy are exempt provided they comply with the requirements of clause 3 (3). 6. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions on receipt of notice from the District Revenue Officer calling upon them to sell rice at the notified price as specified in clause 3 (1). What Mr. Babulu Reddy contends is that the authorities have all the necessary material to know whether there was compliance with the requirements of clause 3 (3) and therefore the authorities should have verified from the records before issuing the impugned notices as to whether they could be called upon to sell levy rice in accordance with the requirements of clause 3 of the Procurement Order. It should be remembered that when any exemption is claimed from the operation of law it is for the party that claims exemption to establish that he is entitled to such exemption under the provisions of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct of enacting the Essential Commodities Act is to maintain or increase supplies of essential commodities and also to secure their equal distribution, that is to say, to make the essential commodities available to all people at fair prices. It is also the object of the Act to secure essential commodities for the defence of India and for the efficient conduct of military operations. In exercise of the powers conferred upon the Central Government by Section 5 it delegates its powers under the Act to the State Government or an officer or authority subordinate to the State Government as may be specified by it. It is by virtue of such delegation of powers that the State Government has issued the procurement Order. The Procurement order, as has already been noticed, is issued in exercise of the powers conferred under the various provisions of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. We are now concerned with clauses (a) (c) and (f) of subsection (2) of Section 3 which are in these terms. "Section 3(2) without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by subsection (1) an order made thereunder may provide. (a) for regulating by licences, permits or otherwise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e controlled prices referred to in Clause (i) of sub-section (3-B) of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. That was repelled by the Division Bench. The learned Judges were of the view that the price fixed under Schedule II is not the controlled price. According to them, it was common knowledge that paddy was sold at much higher price in the open market both by the growers and the dealers than the price mentioned in the Schedule, It is in that view that the learned Judges held: "We cannot therefore call this price as the controlled price, as contemplated by Clause (i) of sub-section (3-B) of Section 3 of the Act. The wording of the Levy Order leaves no doubt in our mind that the price that has been fixed in Schedule II is the 'purchase price', and not the controlled price.' CHANDRASEKHAR J., expressed his agreement with that view and that view is called in aid by the learned counsel Mr. Babulu Reddy here. We are unable to subscribe to the view expressed by the Mysore High Court in the two cases referred to above. The expression 'control' in Section 3(2)(c) lakes within its ambit restrictions, regulations, curbs, restraints. To control a thing i....