Judgment N.P.Singh, J. 1. With the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in different writ applications and learned Advocate General for the State, the above mentioned writ applications are being disposed of at the stage of admission itself by this common order. 2. These writ applications have been filed by the petitioners who are licensed whole dealers within the meaning of Clause 2(f) of the Bihar Rice and Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Levy Order). They have questioned the validity of the Levy Order on the ground that it imposes unreasonable restrictions on their fundamental right to carry on trade and business. 3. The first objection which has been raised on their behalf is in respect of Clause 4 of the Levy Order which is a follows: 4. Levy on licensed wholesale dealer.--Every licensed wholesale dealer shall sell to the State Food Corporation at the procurement price 25 per cent of the total quantity of- (a) each variety of rice conforming to the specification owned by him which he has held in stock on the date of commencement of this order; (b) each variety of rice conforming to specification got milled by him every day out of his stock of paddy; and (c) each variety of rice conforming to specification purchased of otherwise acquired by him for the purpose of sale from persons other than a licensed miller or a licensed wholesale dealer; Provided that every licensed wholesale dealer may, in the alternative elect to sell to the State Government or its agent, at the procurement prices at his business premises 500 (five hundred) quintals of rice as levy. According to the petitioners, the respondent-authorities are insisting delivery of rice as levy even from wholesaler who have purchased rice from other wholesalers who have already delivered rice as levy in accordance with Clause 4. On a plain reading of Clause 4(c) it appears that every licensed wholesale dealer has to sell to the State Food Corporation at the procurement price, 25 per cent of the total quantity of each variety of rice purchased or otherwise acquired by him for the purpose of sale from persons other than a licenced miller or a licensed wholesale dealer. In our opinion, if a wholeseller satisfied the authorities that he has purchased or otherwise acquired for purpose of sale rice from a licensed miller or a licensed wholesale dealer, who has already delivered price as levy, then Clause 4(c) shall not be applicable. In other words, such wholesale dealer has not to sell 25 per cent of the total quantity of rice so purchased Learned Advocate General has. rightly Submitted that the onus is on the licensed wholesale dealer to satisfy the authorities that he has purchased the rice in question from such a licensed miller or a licensed wholesale dealer, in order, to claim exemption from the provision of Clause 4(c) of the Levy Order. 4. In some of the writ applications there are some vague statements that the petitioners have purchased from licensed wholesale dealers who have already delivered the rice as levy in accordance with Clause 4. On basis of those statements it is not possible to issue any writ of mandamus on the respondents restraining then from realising levy in accordance with Clause 4 aforesaid. However, it will be open to the, petitioners to satisfy the authorities concerned for claiming exemption, that they have acquired or purchased rice in question from a, licensed miller or licensed wholesale dealer who has already delivered rice as levy in accordance with Clause 4. 5. It was then urged on behalf of the petitioners that Clauses 8 and 9 of the Levy Order amount to unreasonable restrictions oh the right of the petitioners to carry on trade and business. Clauses 8 and 9 of the Levy Order are as follows: 8. Restriction on sale and movement of ricelpaddy - (1) No licensed Miller/Licensed wholesale dealer shall sell or agree to sell or otherwise dispose of the rice/paddy recovered by milling other than the quantity specified in Clause 3 or Clause 4 or the quantity specified in Clause 3 or Clause 4 or 5 as the case may be. except in accordance with a Release Certificate; issued, by the Collector or any Officer authorised by the Government in this behalf. (2) Save as otherwise provided in Sub-clause (1) no licensed Miller or Licensed wholesale Dealer shall transport rice/paddy for sale from the premises of the rice mill or the godown declared in the Licence except in accordance with the Release Certificate referred to in Sub-clause (1). 9. (2) Save as otherwise provided in Sub-clause (1) no licensed Miller or Licensed wholesale Dealer shall transport rice/paddy for sale from the premises of the rice mill or the godown declared in the Licence except in accordance with the Release Certificate referred to in Sub-clause (1). 9. Release Certifica1e.-- (1) After delivery of levy rice/paddy every Licensed Miller and Licensed Wholesale Dealer may make an application in the form set out in Scheduled VI to the Collector or an officer authorised in this behalf by the Government for issue of a Release Certificate for disposal of levy rice/paddy. (2) The application referred to in Sub-clause (1) shall be accompanied by the receipt in original issued by the purchase officer in respect of delivery of rice/paddy under levy. (3) On receipt of an application under Sub-clause (1), the Collector or the authorized officer shall issue a Release Certificate for movement and disposal of the levy free rice/paddy. The Release Certificate shall be in form set out in Schedule VII. (4) An application for Release Certificate shall be made within one month of the date of delivery of rice/paddy in accordance with Clause (3), Clause (4) and Clause (5) and the stock of rice/paddy in respect of which such Release Certificate is issued shall be disposed of by the Licensed Miller/Licensed Wholesale Dealer within a period of one month from the date of such permit; Provided that the period specified above may be relaxed by the Government for reasons recorded in writing. In view of provisions contained in Clauses 8 and 9, a licensed miller or licensed wholesale dealer can transport rice/paddy only after receipt of release order. After delivery of the levy rice/paddy, every licensed miller and licensed wholesale dealer has to make an application in the form prescribed in Schedule VI to the Collector or an officer authorised in this behalf for issue of a release certificate for disposal of levy free rice/paddy. After delivery of the levy rice/paddy, every licensed miller and licensed wholesale dealer has to make an application in the form prescribed in Schedule VI to the Collector or an officer authorised in this behalf for issue of a release certificate for disposal of levy free rice/paddy. Clause 9(3) requires the Collector or the authorised officer to issue "Release Certificate for movement and disposal of the levy free rice/paddy." In view of Clause 9(4) the application for release certificate has to be made within one month of the date of the delivery of the rice/paddy and the stock of rice/paddy in respect of which release certificate is issued has to be disposed of by the licensed miller/licensed wholesale dealer within a period of one month from the date of such permit. 6. On behalf of the petitioners it was urged that after the delivery of levy rice/paddy and till release certificate is granted by the Collector or the authorised officer the business transactions of the petitioners have to remain stand-still. It was also submitted that Court should take judicial notice of the &ct that in normal course of event the release certificates may not be received for months and during this period the petitioners have to suffer for no fault of theirs. In this connection reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Teknarayan Mahesh Prasad and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. (1). A Bench presided over by Mr. Justice N.L. Untwalia (as he then was) while considering a similar provision in the Bihar Rice and Paddy Procurement Order, 1970, observed as follows- But that brings me to another infirmity in Clause 3 as under Sub-clause (4) of that clause any miller or whole-sale dealer has been restrained from selling or otherwise disposing of his stock of rice unless he has sold the prescribed percentage to the State Government under Sub-clause (1) or Sub-clause (2) as the case may be and has obtained release certificate in token thereof in respect of stocks left in balance with him. From annexure 1 it would appear that delivery is to be made weekly. From annexure 1 it would appear that delivery is to be made weekly. But that apart, in my opinion it is a very unreasonable restriction on the right of the miller or the wholesale dealer not to deal with the balance of his stock of rice unless he has sold the prescribed percentage to the State Government and obtained the release certificate. It is a matter of common experience that sale may not be effected in time and release certificate obtained for no fault of the miller or the wholesale dealer. The Government agency, not infrequently, may be at fault. To prohibit the miller or the wholesale dealer from dealing with the balance of his stock not only for his fault or failure to sell and obtain the release certificate but also for the failure and the fault of the Government or their agent, to my mind, is very unreasonable restriction on his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) and (g). We are in respectful agreement with the view taken in the aforesaid case. Clause 9(3) of the present Levy order restraining the licensed millers and licensed wholesale dealers from making any movement or distribution of levy free rice/paddy before receipt of the release certificate amounts to an unreasonable restriction. Clause 9(4) is also unreasonable in the sense that, it requires a licensed miller or licensed wholesale dealer to dispose of the levy free rice/paddy within month from the date of such permit. 7 The learned Advocate General faced with this situation submitted that only Clause 8 and part of Clause 9(3) restricting movement and disposal of the levy free rice/paddy before receipt of the release certificate should be held to be ultra vires We were inclined to accept this contention but the difficulty is that one part of Clause 9(3) is struck down, then the whole Clause 9 shall become unworkable and redundant. The expression release certificate presupposes release by the authorities concerned. if the paddy/rice has already been sold or disposed of there is no question of releasing it for sale on the order of the Collector or the authorised officer. Accordingly, we are left with no option but to hold that Clauses 8 and 9 of the Levy Order are hit by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and as such ultra vires. 8. Accordingly, we are left with no option but to hold that Clauses 8 and 9 of the Levy Order are hit by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and as such ultra vires. 8. In the result, we hold that there is no constitutional infirmity in Clause 4 of the Levy Order. However, a licensed wholesale dealer can claim exemption from the applicability of Clause 4(c) if such wholesale dealer satisfies the authorities concerned that he has purchased or otherwise acquired from another licensed miller or licensed wholesale dealer who has already sold to the State Food Corporation at the procurement price, 25 per cent of rice milled or held in stock by him. The restriction on the movement and disposal of levy free rice/paddy before obtaining release order as provided in Clauses 8 and 9 are held to be ultra vires. The writ application is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. Parties shall bear their own costs.