Judgment M. P. Verma, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner prays for quashing of Annexures 4 and 7, attached thereto by which a demand of levy of 800 quintals of rice has been made on the firm. 2. The petitioner-firm is a licensee having its licence under the Ricemilling industry (Regulation) Act, 1958. The licence was for setting up for two huliers in the mill premises. Initially as per licence hullers were fixed but later on the petitioner-firm got some financial strain and difficulty operating the two huliers and therefore, moved the authorities concerned for amendment of the licence permitting the petitioner to operate on one huller only. The application was allowed and, accordingly, the petitioner got one of the huliers dismantled. It is his case that since then there is only one huller working inside the mill premises. 3. Under the Bihar and Patna Procurement Order, 1977 the petitioner was asked by the respondents to deliver 800 quintals of rice as levy for the kharif period. It appears from Annexure-4 that the earlier demand was for 3000 quintals, which later on, as stated above, was brought down to 800 quintals only. 4. True it is that the quantum of levy to be delivered by a Miller is determined on the number of huliers working in the rice Mill and for each huller the quantum payable for each kharif year is 400 quintal. 5. The order making a demand on the petitioner to deliver 800 quintals has been challenged on the simple ground that the petitioner is operating only one huller. The milling-licence was amended long back. It is, therefore, wrong for the petitioners to make a demand of 800 quintals of rice as levy. 6. The case of respondents, on the other hand, is that there is no provision under the Act for dismantling one of the huliers when once the licence was granted for fixing up two huliers. It is now contended on behalf of the respondents that order permitting to dismantle one of the huller was a wrong one. 6. The case of respondents, on the other hand, is that there is no provision under the Act for dismantling one of the huliers when once the licence was granted for fixing up two huliers. It is now contended on behalf of the respondents that order permitting to dismantle one of the huller was a wrong one. It has also been stated that the licensee is not entitled to remove or to dismantle and break up any one of huliers for which once the licence is granted and that the law does not permit any amendment on the licence of licensee as such is, therefore, bound to pay levy at the rate of 40 quintals per huller. The authority has rightly made a demand for 800 quintals in view of the fact that the petitioner had licence for two huliers to operate inside the mill premises. 7. It could not be denied by the respondents that there is only one huller at present in operation in the rice Mill and the short point on which this application can be disposed of is whether in such a situation, a levy of 800 quintals is justified. It is equally correct that the petitioner dismantled one of the two huliers and entry regarding this was made in the licence by the licensing authority and the respondents have not denied this fact. Therefore, at this stage, I do not consider it necessary to decide whether the licence can be amended and likewise whether the law permits dismantling, breaking up and removal of a huller from the Mill. It is toe admitted position that there was only one working huller in the Mill of writ-petitioner. I am of the view that a demand of levy can be made on number of huller working and being operated upon in a Mill in a particular kharif period and not on the basis of the number of huliers mentioned in the licence. In the present case the number of working huller had brought down to one. quantum of levy may be fixed on the hullers working inside and operated in the Mill premises and not on the dismantled or inoperative huller. The demand of 800 quintals of rice as levy on the petitioner for the kharif year 1977-78 is, therefore, without jurisdiction. 8. In the circumstance, refered to above, this application succeed. quantum of levy may be fixed on the hullers working inside and operated in the Mill premises and not on the dismantled or inoperative huller. The demand of 800 quintals of rice as levy on the petitioner for the kharif year 1977-78 is, therefore, without jurisdiction. 8. In the circumstance, refered to above, this application succeed. In the result, the additional demand of levy of 400 quintals as per Annexures 4 and 7 is hereby quashed. There will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.