SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) SRI subbanna, learned government Advocate to take notice for the respondents. Copies of the petitions with annexures are furnished to him. ( 2 ) AS these petitions can be disposed ofon a short ground and as they are covered by a decision of this court, Rule is issued and they are heard for final disposal. ( 3 ) IN these petitions under Articles 226and 227 of the Constitution the petitioners have sought for quashing the government order dated 4-11-1988 bearing No. Ptd 52 rf 88 issued by the state government produced as annexure-a. ( 4 ) UNDER the said order issued as foodprocurement policy for the year 1988-89 a ban is imposed for movement of paddy outside the state. Further ban is imposed for transport of paddy from one district to another within the state without intimating the deputy commissioner of the district concerned in the proforma to be prescribed in that behalf. It is relevant to notice that Karnataka rice procurement (levy order), 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 'levy order') is issued by the state government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the essential commodities Act, 1955. Sub-clause (2) of clause 6 of the levy order provided that "no person shall transport paddy from one district to another district without a permit to be issued by the deputy commissioner of the concerned district in accordance with the directions issued hereafter by the state government in this regard. " The validity of this clause was considered by this court in khalimulla khan v State of Karnataka (i. l. r. 1986, KAR. 1641) the aforesaid clause was struck down a imposing unreasonable restriction. Pursuant to that, the state government by the notification dated 19th December 1989 bearing No. Ftd 71 rpr 85 published in the extraordinary gazette of 19th December 1985 deleted sub clause (2) of clause 6 of the levy order. As far as ban for transporting paddy outside the state is concerned sub clause (3) of clause 6 provides for it and that is not disturbed and that clause still continues to be in force. Therefore, the aforesaid government order in so far as it imposes a restriction on the movement of paddy within the state and from one district to another district within the state cannot he sustained. Therefore, the aforesaid government order in so far as it imposes a restriction on the movement of paddy within the state and from one district to another district within the state cannot he sustained. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed in the following terms:- the following portion in the government order dated 4-11-1988 bearing No. Ptd 52 rf 88 (Annexure-A) "further no person shall transport paddy from one district to another within the state without intimating the deputy commissioner of the district concerned in the proforma to be prescribed in this behalf is hereby quashed and it is further ordered that no permission or authorisation is required to be obtained on intimation is required to be given to the deputy commissioner of the- district or any authority of the district for transporting paddy within the state and from one district to another district within the state as long as the levy order stands as on today. Sri Subbanna, learned Government Advocate is permitted to file his memo of appearance on behalf of respondents in six weeks. Writ petitions allowed. --- *** --- .