Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in this original petition is one who bid in auction the right to harvest paddy cultivated by certain encroachers at Keerithode who were subsequently evicted. The grievance of the petitioner is against Exts. P-2, P-4 and P-5. The petitioner has also a grievance that he is threatened with prosecution for the failure to measure levy paddy which he has agreed to measure as per Ext P-1 agreement. The main question that arises for consideration is whether as long as the petitioner is not a "cultivator" as per the Kerala Rice and Paddy (Procurement by Levy) Order, 1966 for short the Levy Order, has be got any liability to measure levy under the Levy Order and can he be prosecuted under S.7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for not measuring levy. 2. The petitioner was the highest bidder of the right to harvest paddy from the evicted area in Keerithode sold by auction on 13 71973. The petitioner remitted the full bid amount of Rs. 3601/- and on 6 61973 executed Ext. P-1 agreement. As per Ext. P-1 agreement the petitioner agreed to measure levy at the rates prescribed in the Levy Order. But, according to the petitioner he could not harvest the paddy as the encroachers themselves trespassed into the area and took the harvest. Then came Ext. P-2 notice from the 2nd respondent-Village Officer, Idikki asking the petitioner to measure a levy of 153 quintals of paddy. The petitioner filed Ext.P-3 objections before the 3rd respondent - Taluk Supply Officer, Thodupuzha requesting him to exempt him from liability to measure levy. But the 3rd respondent without adverting to the objections raised in Ext, P-3 directed the petitioner to measure 76.5 quintals of paddy by giving a reduction of 50%. Against Ext. P-4 the petitioner filed an appeal before the 4th respondent District Supply Officer, Idikki who by Ext. P-5 dismissed the same. The petitioner apprehends that at the instance of the respondents steps are in the offing for prosecuting the petitioner under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for alleged contravention of the Levy Order. It is under the above circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court with this original petition. 3. Shri K. Narayana Kurup, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the paddy agreed to be measured as levy by the petitioner as per Ext. It is under the above circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court with this original petition. 3. Shri K. Narayana Kurup, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the paddy agreed to be measured as levy by the petitioner as per Ext. P1 agreement is not the levy due to Government under the Levy Order, Learned counsel refers to Clause.3 of the Levy Order and contends that under the Levy Order only a cultivator can be asked to measure levy. As the petitioner was not a cultivator since he was only a bidder in auction of the right to harvest the paddy cultivated by the encroachers, according to the learned counsel, no liability whatsoever can be cast on the petitioner under the Levy Order to measure levy even though the petitioner has by Ext. P1 agreement agreed to measure levy Learned counsel then contends that if the petitioner has no liability under the Levy Order to measure levy by not measuring the levy agreed to by Ext. P1 agreement he will not be contravening any of the provisions under the Levy Order and hence no question of any prosecution under S.7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 arises because S.7 will be attracted only if the petitioner contravenes any of the provisions of the Levy Order or any other order issued under S 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relies on P. A. Yoosuf v. Kumaranelloor Panchayat (1973 KLT.145) wherein my learned brother Balakrishna Eradi J. dealing with a case under the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 has said: "The amount payable to the Panchayat by the writ petitioner under the contract evidenced by Ext. P1 is certainly not a cess, rate, surcharge or tax imposed under the Act nor is it a fee levied under the Act. S.74 is not, therefore, attracted to the case. The only question that remains is whether the amount sought to be recovered from the petitioner will fall within the scope of the rule relied on by the 1st respondent the terms of which have been reproduced above. In order that the provisions of the said rule should become applicable the amount sought to be recovered must be a sum due to the Panchayat under the Kerala Panchayats Act or any other law, or rules, or bye-laws made thereunder. In order that the provisions of the said rule should become applicable the amount sought to be recovered must be a sum due to the Panchayat under the Kerala Panchayats Act or any other law, or rules, or bye-laws made thereunder. I am clearly of opinion that an amount due to a Panchayat under a contract such as Ext. P1 cannot be regarded as a sum due to it either under the Kerala Panchayats Act or any other enactment, or rules, or bye-laws framed under any such enactment." In the above case Eradi J. has held that the respondent Panchayat has no jurisdiction to recover the balance amount stated to be due to it under a contract by launching a criminal prosecution against the petitioner therein under the second proviso to S.74 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960. 4. Learned Government Pleader contends that the petitioner has agreed to measure levy under Ext. PI agreement and hence there is no escape from it. Learned Government Pleader also points out that no steps are so far taken for prosecuting the petitioner for not measuring the levy as per Ext. P1 and a mere apprehension on the part of the petitioner will not be enough for approaching this Court to get a relief against the prosecution which is not so far taken. According to the learned Government Pleader, no relief whatsoever can be granted against the threatened prosecution. Learned Government Pleader contends that having agreed to measure levy as per Ext. P-1 agreement the petitioner cannot contend before this Court that he cannot be asked to measure levy. 5. Shri Narayana Kurup, replying to the contentions of the learned Government Pleader, points out that as far as the prosecution is concerned, a real apprehension is enough for maintaining an original petition. In support of this contention, learned counsel relies on Ram Krishna Kulwant Rai & others v. Union of India (AIR. 1969 Cal. 5. Shri Narayana Kurup, replying to the contentions of the learned Government Pleader, points out that as far as the prosecution is concerned, a real apprehension is enough for maintaining an original petition. In support of this contention, learned counsel relies on Ram Krishna Kulwant Rai & others v. Union of India (AIR. 1969 Cal. 18) wherein D. Basu J. has said: "Since the relief proposed by me will be declaratory in nature the question of locus standi falls into the background because it has been established that in order to maintain an application under Art.226, it is not necessary for the petitioner to show that he las already suffered an actual injury: apprehension of injury or threat of injury is enough." Learned counsel points out that under the Levy Order the liability to measure levy is in respect of certain crops and the right to harvest bid by the petitioner is not in respect of any one of the crops for which levy is directed to be measured under the Levy Order. Learned counsel also points out that the lands in question also do not belong to the petitioner and hence by no stretch of imagination the petitioner can be deemed to be a cultivator under the Levy Order. 6. There is considerable force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Clause.3 of the Levy Order reads: "3. Cultivator to sell paddy to the Government. Every cultivator shall sell to the Government or an agent of the Government appointed by the District Collector or any other person authorised by the District Collector in this behalf, paddy derived from lands cultivated by him in accordance with such scale as may be specified by the Government from time to time by notification in the Gazette and different scales may be specified for different areas of the State:Provided that the cultivator shall be entitled to sell to the Government or an agent of the Government appointed by the District Collector or any other person authorised by the District Collector in this behalf, rice in lieu of paddy and for this purpose 66.2/3 kilograms of rice shall be treated as equivalent to one quintal of paddy." By no stretch of imagination the petitioner can be considered to be a cultivator under the Levy Order. If so, under Clause.3 of the Levy Order he has no liability to measure levy and refusing to measure levy will not be a contravention of Clause.3 or of any other provision of the Levy Order, Under S.7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, prosecution can be launched only'if any person contravenes, whether knowingly, intentionally, or otherwise, any order made under S.3. So. it goes without saying that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for not measuring levy as per Ext. P-1 agreement. It is also pertinent to note that the right to harvest was bid by the petitioner and the crops harvested by the petitioner were not crops raised by him. So, the petitioner is not a cultivator in any view of the matter. Even if steps are not actually taken to prosecute the petitioner, if the petitioner has a real apprehension that he is going to be prosecuted, he has every right to approach this Court with this original petition. So, it cannot be said that the original petition is not maintainable simply because no steps are actually taken for prosecuting the petitioner. But as far as the liability to measure levy under Ext. P-1 agreement the petitioner has no escape. The respondents have every right to insist that the petitioner should measure levy because he has agreed to for the same by Ext. P-1. 7. The original petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.