Judgment 1. This application by Messrs. Shri Mahabir Rice and Flour Mills - a partnership firm, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the notice, dated the 29th of November, 1974 (Annexure 1) issued by the Sub-divisional Officer, Jamtara (respondent No. 2), demanding one thousand quintals of rice as levy from it for the procurement year 1974-75, under Clause 14 (1) of the Bihar Rice and Paddy Procurement Order, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Procurement Order). 2. In order to appreciate the point involved in this application, it will be necessary to state, briefly, the facts as stated by the petitioner in the application. The petitioner is a firm carrying on manufacturing business of rice during the kharif year 1974-75 only on customers account. It was further stated in paragraph one of the application that the petitioner had not at any point of time any quantity of rice or paddy on its own account during the said Kharif year; since the petitioners licence was cancelled by order dated the 18th January, 1975, it had stopped its milling operations even on customers account which it was carrying on. In spite of the facts stated above, the petitioner mentioned in paragraph three of its application that the firm was served with the impugned notice. After the receipt of the impugned notice, the petitioner filed an application before the Subdivisional Officer (respondent No. 2) stating, inter alia, that it was not liable to deliver one thousand quintals of rice as levy since it had no boiling or drying facilities and had no such opportunity in the mill and, further stating therein, that it did not produce rice on its own account but it produced rice on customers account. A copy of the said application is marked as Annexure 2. 3A. A counter\-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, viz., the State of Bihar through its Secretary in the Department of Supply and Commerce (respondent No. 1) and the Subdivisional Officer, Jamtara (respondent No. 2). The relevant portion of the counter-affidavit is to be found in paragraphs 5 and 6 which reads thus: "(5) That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, it is stated that it is not a fact that the petitioner has no drying and boiling facilities in his mill. The relevant portion of the counter-affidavit is to be found in paragraphs 5 and 6 which reads thus: "(5) That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, it is stated that it is not a fact that the petitioner has no drying and boiling facilities in his mill. The petitioners mill dehusks paddy of its partner firm i.e., M/s. Ram Chandra Gopiram and for all the practical purposes both are joint. (6) That with regard to the statement made in paragraph 9, it is stated that the petitioners contention is irrelevant as he has a single huller rice mill, having drying and boiling facilities." 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has assailed the impugned notice, chiefly, on the ground that clause 14 (1) of the Procurement Order did not apply to the case of the petitioner who was not carrying on milling operations on its own behalf, but it was carrying on milling operations only on behalf of the customers. Learned Counsel pointed out (referring to the above paragraphs of the counter-affidavit) that it has not been stated on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner was carrying on milling operations on its own behalf. Therefore, according to him, the facts stated in this regard have not been controverted in the counter-affidavit. In order to find support, to his contention that clause 14 (1) of the Procurement Order is not applicable in the case of the petitioner, he has relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court in C. W. J. C. No. 624 of 1975, decided on 25-2-1975 (Pat). In our opinion, the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is well founded. In the aforesaid case, S. N. P. Singh, C. J. and S.K. Jha, J., while dealing with the provision contained in Clause 14 (1) of the Procurement Order, 1974, considered the judgment in C. W. J. C. No. 615 of 1968 (Pat) and analogous cases, dated 17-12-1968, and observed: "In view of the decision in that case the petitioner will not be liable to pay levy if it is dehusking paddy only on the customers account and not on its own or if it is not holding any stock on its own account." In the instant case also nothing on the record has been brought to show that the petitioner was dehusking paddy on its own account. In that view of the matter, the impugned notice (Annexure 1) has got to be quashed. 4 In the result, the application is allowed and the notice (Annexure 1), dated the 29th November, 1974, is quashed. It is, however, made clear that if the petitioner deal in rice or paddy in any manner on its own account, it world be open to the authorities concerned to take such legal steps against the petitioner as may be permissible in law. There will be no order for costs in this case.