S. B. MAJMUDAR, C. J. ( 1 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties in these group of matters. As a short question is involved, by their consent all these appeals are treated to have been admitted and are being disposed of. ( 2 ) THE learned single Judge having heard the parties in these group of matters has taken the view that for the purpose of the Karnataka Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 (for short referred to as 'order 1984') as no purchase price has been prescribed there is no restriction to transport the broken rice as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It was further held that so long as the purchase price is not fixed and no levy is contemplated under the Order, 1984 for broken rice, there cannot be any restriction for its free movement. In case of dispute as to whether the rice in transit is broken rice or pucca rice, it is for the concerned authorities to decide in accordance with law. ( 3 ) LEARNED Government Advocate appearing for the appellant-authorities in this group of matters submitted that the absolute proposition laid down by the learned single Judge that no rice other than pucca rice can be covered by the sweep of the Levy Order 1984 is not well sustained. We may, therefore turn to the relevant provisions of the Levy Order 1984. The said Order 1984, defines 'rice' as per clause 2 (k) to mean, any variety of dehusked polished, raw and parboiled rice and includes rice equivalent to paddy held in stock. The explanation to the said provision reads as under:-" (I) 67. 5 Kilograms of rice with 5 per cent polish shall be considered as equivalent to one quintal of paddy in the case of raw rice; and (ii) 70 Kilograms of rice with 3. 5 per cent polish shall be considered as equivalent to one quintal of paddy in the case of parboiled rice;"the term "specifications" is defined by Cl. 2 (n) of Levy Order 1984 to mean the specifications indicated in Schs. III and IV of rice of the varieties indicated in Sch. II. ( 4 ) AS per Cl. 5 per cent polish shall be considered as equivalent to one quintal of paddy in the case of parboiled rice;"the term "specifications" is defined by Cl. 2 (n) of Levy Order 1984 to mean the specifications indicated in Schs. III and IV of rice of the varieties indicated in Sch. II. ( 4 ) AS per Cl. (3) of the Order 1984, it is provided every miller shall sell every day beginning with the date of commencement of this order to the State Government or the purchase agent at a purchase price, 25% of the total quantity of rice conforming to specifications obtained by milling paddy owned by him in his rice Mill everyday; provided that these provisions shall not apply to Basumathi rice meant for export from the State. ( 5 ) IT is submitted that broken rice would not be covered by the aforesaid order especially in the light of Cl. 3 of the Levy Order 1984, as purchase price for broken rice is not fixed under the Order 1984 and therefore Cl. 3 would not operate in case of broken rice. In order to appreciate this contention it will be necessary to look at Sch. III which deals with uniform specifications of fine and common varieties of rice. It provides as follows:-"the rice shall be in sound, merchantable, condition, sweet, dry, clean, wholesome of good food value, uniform in colour and size of grains and free moulds, weevils, smell, discolouration, admixture of deleterious substances or colouring agents and all impurities except to the extent in the schedule below. "dealing with the Schedule of Refractions for the year 1984-85, we find at Sl. No. 1, the details regarding constituents of admixture or impurities etc. , wherein tolerance limit has been fixed and rejection limit is also prescribed. The very first item is the broken raw par boiled. It is therefore clear that as per the Order 1984 what is contemplated to be covered by the sweep of Cl. 3 is rice which may be having contents of broken raw rice, provided it conforms to the Schedule of refractions. At Sl. No. 5 of the Table of Sch. III, the tolerance limit or rejection limit have been provided at the rate of 1/4th value. Consequently, Sch. III, will have to be read with Cl. 3 is rice which may be having contents of broken raw rice, provided it conforms to the Schedule of refractions. At Sl. No. 5 of the Table of Sch. III, the tolerance limit or rejection limit have been provided at the rate of 1/4th value. Consequently, Sch. III, will have to be read with Cl. 3 of the Order 1984, with a view to finding out whether rice in a given case conforms to the specifications as provided by Sch. III subject to the tolerance limit about the size of the concerned rice. Therefore, no universal proposition can be laid down that if the rice is broken necessarily it goes out of the sweep of the Levy Order. It will all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. We may say that perhaps this is the reason why no purchase price is fixed for such type of broken rice which does not conform to the tolerance limit as laid down by Schedule III. ( 6 ) IT is made clear that if the authorities on inspection find that the rice in question is of such a nature that it does not conform to the specifications laid down by Sch. III of the Order 1984 and the tolerance limit specified therein is not met, then naturally such type of rice would be outside the purview of Cl. 3. This will all have to be examined by the authorities. No universal proposition can be laid down, that rice which is broken of necessarily would in fact be out of the purview of the Order, 1984 without the aforesaid scrutiny and satisfaction arrived at by the authorities in the light of the relevant clauses of the Order 1984 read with Sch. III. To the extent the order passed by the learned single Judge will have to be read down as aforesaid. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, Sri C. N. Kamath, learned counsel appearing for repondents 5, 6, 9 and 12 vehemently submitted that even that is provided by the Judgment of the learned single Judge himself in the last but one paragraph, wherein it is clearly stated that in case of dispute as to whether the rice in transit is broken rice or pucca rice, it is for the concerned authorities to decide in accordance with law. A doubt might arise, because the learned Judge has used the word 'broken rice' meaning thereby, that it may be urged that pucca rice would be rice, which is not in a broken condition as discussed earlier. It has to be said that the observations will have to be read down to mean that pucca rice is a rice which is covered by Cl. 3 read with Sch. III and subject to the tolerance limit as indicated in the schedule. In fact this is the very view taken by another learned Judge of this Court. In W. P. Nos. 21014 to 21016/1989 decided on 28-11-1989, in paragraph 5 of the Judgment, Justice Swami, as he then was, following earlier decision of another learned single Judge in W. P. Nos. 1308 and 1342 of 1984 (Sri Ranganatha Industries, Soji Dealers v. State of Karnataka and others) observed that the word 'rice' would cover even broken rice which is as per the specifications. In view of that decision, Justice Swami, issued directions to the authorities as under:-"6 (A ). If the petitioners, as dealers purchase or acquire broken rice for the purpose of sale from persons other than millers or dealers and such broken rice does not conform to fair average quality of rice, they are not liable to surrender levy under the Levy Order; and they are "entitled to transport such broken rice without any restriction to any place within or outside the State. But, it is open to the enforcing authorities to check and make necessary inspection of the commodity in order to satisfy themselves that the broken rice does not attract the provisions of the Levy Order. (b) In case, the broken rice purchased or acquired by the petitioners for the purpose of sale from persons other than millers or dealers conforms to fair average quality of rice, they are liable to surrender levy and comply with all the requirements of the Levy Order. "in our view these directions would fully meet the requirements of the present case also. Therefore, the Judgment of the learned single Judge will stand clarified and modified to the aforesaid extent and directions issued by the learned single Judge will also be issued in the present set of cases. Writ Appeals are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .