( 1 ) THIS is the second time the petitioner is approaching this Court for reief under Art. 226 of the Constitution. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to the petition are: The petitioner is a dealer in foodgrains at Shimoga Dist, He applied for a permit to transport rice to places qutside the Dist. of Shimoga. The application was made to the Dy. Commr. of the district under the provisions of the Karnataka Paddy (Regulation of Inter-Dist. Transport) Control Order, 1972. The Deputy commr. said that his application would be considered after substantial progress is made in the procurement of levy paddy. After waiting for a couple of months, the petitioner reminded the Dy. Commr. to consider his application, and issue transport permit. There was no response from the Dy. Commr. He, therefore, approached this Court in WP. 860/74 praying for an order directing the Dy. Commr. to dispose of his application for transport permit. The said writ petition came up for consideration on 22nd march 1974. This Court allowed the petition with a direction to the Dy. Commr. to consider and dispose of the application within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the order thereof. ( 3 ) PURSUANT to the direction issued by this Court, the Dy. Commr. considered the application of the petitioner on 4-4-1974 and mads an endorsement as follows :" Endorsement his application cited above for grant of permit to, transport rice outside Shimoga Dist. has been considered and he is requested to pay 100 quintals of paddy as the levy rate as deposit and also pay 25 quintals of rice or its equivalent paddy at the levy rales for issue of permit for every 100 quintal of rice as per the instructions issued by the Goyt. in their DO. letter No. FCS 179 RPR dt. 14 15-3-74 of the Secy, to Govt, Food and Civil supplies Dept, Bangalora and produce tin relative grain vouchers for issuing the permits. Further he is informed that ha will be allowed to transport 80 per cent of the total quantity to Bangalore and other non-border districts, 10 per cent of the quantity to South Kanara Dist. and 10 per cent to, Belgium Dist. as per the instructions contained in the abovesaid Govtr. letter. "aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioner has again approached this Court for a relief under Article 226. and 10 per cent to, Belgium Dist. as per the instructions contained in the abovesaid Govtr. letter. "aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioner has again approached this Court for a relief under Article 226. ( 4 ) IT was contended for the petitioner that the Dy. Commr. has arbitrarily demanded the deposit of 100 quintals of paddy at the levy rate and to pay 25 quintals of rice or its equivalent paddy at the levy rate as a precondition for issuing permits to transport every 100 quintals of rice. It was further urged that the Dy. Commr. has not at all e?:ercised his discretion in the matter as to whether or not, the prevailing circumstances in the district or outside justify the issuance of transport permits. It was said that he has blindly followed the confidential instruction issued by the secretary to Govt. Food and Civil Supplies in his DO. letter No. FCS 179 rpr 74 dt 14| 15-3-1974 and rejected the request of the petitioner for transport permit. ( 5 ) THE transport permits are required to bq issued under Rule 3 of the Karnataka Paddy (Regulation of Inter-district Transport) Control order, 1972. The rule provides as follows :" 3. Regulation of transport of paddy from one district to another districtno person shall transport, attempt to transport, or abet the transport of any paddy from any place within a district to any place in the State putside the district except under and in accordance with a permit issued by the State Govt. or any officer Authorised by it in this behalf. " (Proviso is omitted as unnecessary ). The power of the State Govt. under the said rule, has been delegated to some of the Dy. Commrs. of the district by Notification dt. 11-12-1972. So far as Shimoga, Dist. is concerned, the Dy. Commr. of that district is the concerned authority to issue transport permits abput which there is no dispute. ( 6 ) THE question then is whether the Dy. Comrnr. has exercised his discretion in accordance with the well settled principles by issuing the impugned endorsement. ( 7 ) THE scope of Rule 3 of Karnataka Paddy (Regulation of Interdistrict transport) Control Order, 1972, came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court in Sharavathi Rice and Flour Mills v. Dy. Commr. , 1973 2 Mys. LJ 19. Comrnr. has exercised his discretion in accordance with the well settled principles by issuing the impugned endorsement. ( 7 ) THE scope of Rule 3 of Karnataka Paddy (Regulation of Interdistrict transport) Control Order, 1972, came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court in Sharavathi Rice and Flour Mills v. Dy. Commr. , 1973 2 Mys. LJ 19. wherein it was observed :" Rule 3 does not lay down any guidance, for the, refusal or for the grant of any permit. But it is expected that the Dy, Commr. should act in good faith. He must have regard to all relevant considerations and must disregard all irrelevant considerations. He must not seek to promote purposes alien to the letter or spirit of the provisions of the. Rules that give him power to act. He must not act arbitrarily or capriciously. " ( 8 ) JUDGED by these principles, let ma consider the validity of the conditions imposed upon the petitioner. It is seen that the Dy. Commr. has directed the petitioner to deposit 100 quintals of paddy at the levy rates. He has also directed him to pay 25 quintals of rice or its equivalent paddy at the levy rates. These demands evidently were not made under the provisions of the Karnataka Paddy Procurement (Levy) order 1966. That has no application, as the petitioner is a trader and not a grower or producer. There is no other rule made or order issued under the Essential Commodities Act, justifying the said demand from the petitioner. The impugned endorsement was issued as per the confidential instruction issued by the Secretary to the Govt. , Food and Civil Supplies dept. Mr. Mandappa, learned High Court Govt. Pleader, does not dispute this fact. In these circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that the dy. Commr. has acted arbitrarily and illegally has much force. It seems to me that the Dy. Commr. forgot that he is a statutory authority while, exercising his powers under Rule 3 of the Paddy (Regulation of Inter-Dist transport) Control Order, 1972; and not an agent of the Govt. He is required to exercise his discretion reasonably and upon reasonable grounds. The discretion does not empower him to do what he likes merely because he is minded to do so, or what others ask him to do so. He is required to exercise his discretion reasonably and upon reasonable grounds. The discretion does not empower him to do what he likes merely because he is minded to do so, or what others ask him to do so. He must, by the use of his reason ascertain the conditions in the district or elsewhere and consider the issuance of pewnit to the petitioner. ( 9 ) IN the result, I allow the petition and quash the impugned endorsement dt. 4-4-1974 (Ext. C) with a direction tp the Dy. Commr. to consider the application of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made herein within 10 days from the receipt of this order. ( 10 ) THE petitioner is entitled to his costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100. --- *** --- .