Kalleshwara Trading Company vs Union Of India on 23 November, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT
DI-IARWAD.

DATED THIS THE 23122 DAY or NOVEMBER, 2009 

PRESENT

THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE H.BILLAI?HP_Afl"'-..r.  i" i

Writ Petition Nos. 65580 to 65583" i§$f'f2roo94:o1v:----r<j_'§:)_VV 
1. Sri Kaiieshwara Trading Company V . i _ .
General Merchants 85 Commission Agents". V _ .
By its Partner Lingappa S/o Amarappa I-Iugare  
Age: 57 years   ' ~

2. Amar Agencies   _ ._  V   
General Merchants 8;. Comrnission*Age'nt_s   i '
By its Proprietor T.VeereshASh.e_tty   ' " 
S / o Bogayyashetty,-Age: 49 years i "

3. M /s Dhanaraj In'c:?_1i.istr:;aes, I~?,icei1\/iiI1~.._Ho 
Byits Partner $hair_anabasav'a.V _ H
S / o Veeranna Ara1i,*A:ge:i 2'3"yea'rs

4. Sri Vijayaduriga' Ind1otstrie~s,"RiiCe M1115
By its Partner C(;S_rinivas Rao'
_ ..  / o Ra nfgaiah, Age: '42 ye ars

i*AII.iare., sitttated.  Karatagi
TatI_uk:o_C§ar1'gavat12oi_ it
Dist: Kappa}   " .. Petitioners

 (E§y_sn' Cliiandrashéikar Patil, Advocate}

 Ar3d--:.  A. T

  .  _im:an of India
'   By its Secretary

..i_'Ministry of Food and Civii Suppiies and

V.



Consumer Affairs, Krishi Bhavan
New Delhi

2. The State of Karnataka
By its Secretary
Department of Food and Civil Supplies
And Consumer Affairs
Vikas Soudha, Bangalore   _

3. The Deputy Commissioner

Koppal District, Koppal _   ..  it

(By Smt. K.VidyaVathi, Addl. Govt. Advocate]
These writ petitions are" filed un"deri'Aritic_les 226" and 227 of
the Constitution of India prayi1fi;g_ to d;ec1arewbyiissuing a writ or
order that there is no movement restriction iofi_':iCev_ and paddy for
transporting it from one placetoanother:within"'t.he state and also
outside the state and e--t9.'--_ V    h 

the Court made the fo:1_lo_wing:'   ._

These petitions ~co:m--i1i;V1gV  hearing this day,

in these iwrit petitions" !i1:ifl'd€f Articles 226 and 227 of the
Co_n'stituti.on oflndia; thepetiitioners have sought for a declaration

that there is  restriction of movement of rice and paddy from

 one place'i'to«aVnoth.er' the state or outside the state.

  The 'grievance of the petitioners is that the 2nd respondent

officers by misinterpreting and misreading the order of the

V

IS’ respondent are causing obstruction for transportation of rice

and paddy from one place to another.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners su-bm.-i.tte.dl”thatA the

matter is covered by the decision I “Co’tilI’rt__

W.P.No.20976/2002 and W.P.No.1V1’6Q8/200$” and aV~tliere’fore;; the

writ petitions may be disposed of in of the-nlrde’rs passed by
this Court in w.P.No.2o976/15002 and ;v§v}’i.1p608/éoos.

4. The learned Clourisel:=forgt1*ie 1’31 submitted that

there is no ban ias it»isilremo’aéer1iand there is no restriction of

movement ofirice one place to another. He also
submitted that uthep moveniienVt”-.oli””rice or paddy is subject to the
provisions _of Rice Regulation and Rice and

P?iiZlCi3t,PrCi:C;:ir€!Ai3<1€1'1t'{L€\tfi,t)iibiftiler, 1999.

Government Advocate submitted that the

L'pe.titioners h'ave; not produced anything to show that restriction is

also submitted that in fact the petitioners have been

5/

permitted to sell rice or paddy under Form No.7 and therefore, the

prayer of the petitioners cannot be granted.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions

learned counsel for the parties.

7. This Court in w.P.No.2o97o]i’2ob2, refe1*ri_ng”to elause (3)
of the Central Government Older. hasiordered,as..fo1lows: it
“___m98DERtli

Writ petitiorlejs aZ.:loWed;; Aidieelaration is made
that there one’ the movement of
paddy/ rice fforl5l_ one anotherlwithin the State

and also outAsidIe_…’_(_)rdered accordingly.”

8. sim11ar13}i,”–«iowe Nof1a–i’oo8/2005 following the decision
in..-W 200:’; ‘this«’Court has ordered as follows:

the aforesaid judgment, this Writ
;peti’ti_o«n of, declaring that there is no
rest’r.i_ction’on? the movement of paddy or rice from one
”,place tovanother within the state and also outside the

V ‘ ‘~st’ate-(._’n’

be

9. Therefore, it is proper to dispose of these writ petitions, in

terms of the orders passed by this Court in WP. No.209j?6–i/_2:()’02

and w.1=>. No.11608/2005.

10. Accordingly, the writ petitions-_are_j’dispoLsed~ of

of the orders passed in*:_ and

W.P.No.11608 / 2005 declaring that ___ithe:re–.r_»is .rio.i_restr.i?.ction of
movement of paddy or rice frorfi _or1_e ariother within the
state or outside the state. ‘

JUDGE