Judgment D.P.WADHWA, J. 1. By this writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks writ/ order / direction for quashing the order dated September, 26, 1983 of the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Saharsa, passed under Clause 10(2) of the Bihar Rice and Paddy Procurement Order, 1982 (for short, Procurement Order) directing the petitioner to supply 543.08 quintals of rice to the State Food Corporation under the aforesaid Procurement Order. 2. The petitioner is a licensed miller under Clause 2(b) of the Procurement Order which means the owner or other person incharge of rice mill holding a valid licence under the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958. Under the Procurement Order he was to supply rice at the directions of the authorities mentioned therein. This Procurement Order was issued under Sec. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. This Act as the preamble shows was enacted to provide, in the interests of general public, for the control of production, supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce in, certain commodities. Sec. 3 empowered the Central Government to issue orders providing for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution of essential commodities and trade and commerce therein. The Procurement Order was issued by the Government of Bihar with the prior concurrence of the Central Government as the Governor was of the opinion that it was necessary and expedient so to do, for maintaining the supplies of rice and for securing its equitable distribution and availability at fair prices. Clauses 3, 5 and 10 which are relevant for our purposes may be set out as under :- "3. Clauses 3, 5 and 10 which are relevant for our purposes may be set out as under :- "3. Levy on rice-millers--- Every licensed miller (having multi-huller / sheller type and single huller rice mills with boiling and drying facilities for paddy) shall sell to the State Government or its agent, for the agriculture year, 1982-83 at the procurement price at his mill premises, 50 per cent of each of the varieties of rice produced or manufactured in his rice mill every day and demand for delivery of such rice shall be made on the basis of rice produced or manufactured in the mill every day : Provided that no stock shall be allowed to be removed from the mill premises, without delivery of levy demand, pertaining to such stocks.5 (i) Every person from whom levy is due under clause 3 may deliver rice to the State Government or their agent in lieu of the entire stock of paddy and rice of all varieties deliverable in levy by him and for this purpose one quintal of paddy shall be deemed to be equivalent to 66.66 kg. of rice. (ii) Every licensed rice miller required to pay levy on percentage basis fixed for them under this order shall deliver to the State Government or its agent leviable share of rice within 15 days from the date of such stock being ready for delivery. (iii) Every miller acting in contravention of the provisions made under clause (ii) above will be charged a penalty of 10 per cent over and above the due levy every week.10. (iii) Every miller acting in contravention of the provisions made under clause (ii) above will be charged a penalty of 10 per cent over and above the due levy every week.10. Power of entry, search and seizure.(1) Any enforcement Officer may, with a view to secure compliance with this order satisfy himself that this order has been complied with -(a) enter, with such assistance as may be necessary any rice-mill or other premises where he has reason to believe that rice is produced or stocked or paddy is stocked; (b) examine any books of account; or (c) search any premises, vehicles or vessel and seize rice and /or paddy in respect of which he has reason to believe that contravention of this order has been, is being or is about to be committed and a report regarding such seizure of rice / paddy shall be sent to the concerned Collector without unreasonable delay as provided under Sec. 6A of E. C. Act, 1955 (Act 10 of 1955) for necessary action. (2) The licensed miller whose stock is seized, shall be paid value of the seized stock at the procurement price.(3) The provisions of all sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974) relating to search and seizure shall as far as may be, apply to search and seizures under this clause. " 3. The petitioner defaulted in complying with the provisions of the Procurement Order. Its premises were searched on August 8, 1983 under Clause 10 of the Procurement Order by the District Supply Officer, Sahara 42 quintals of rice and 1579.05 quintals of paddy were found and seized. On the basis of the report received from the District Supply Officer under Clause 10(1)(c) of the Procurement Order and a show cause notice was served on the petitioner as to why it should not be paid the value of seized stock at the procurement price under Clause 10(2) of the Procurement Order. On the basis of the report received from the District Supply Officer under Clause 10(1)(c) of the Procurement Order and a show cause notice was served on the petitioner as to why it should not be paid the value of seized stock at the procurement price under Clause 10(2) of the Procurement Order. The grounds on which show cause notice was issued were : -(i) The production of only 723 quintals of rice from 1156.80 quintals of paddy has been shown by him, which is only 62.5 percent, whereas as per Sec. 5(1) of the order this should have been 66.66 percent.(ii) From 15-2-1983 (the date of issue of the order) to 8-8-83 the rice was produced only on 7 days and huge stock of 1579 quintals of paddy was stored in order to evade the rice levy. 4. In answer to the show cause notice the petitioner submitted that for last many years percentage of production of rice from paddy was 62.5% but even then the petitioner was ready to pay the levy to the Government as per the new production rate prescribed. The petitioner further submitted that due to various factors its mill remained closed, but nevertheless the petitioner was ready to deliver levy of 585.08 quintals of rice due to it and commuted on the basis of stock of rice and paddy available with it as on 15-2-1983, the date when the Procurement Order came into force and the production made thereafter. 5. It appears, the petitioner did not stick to the stand and submitted yet another answer to show cause. In this it repudiated his liability altogether and even questioned the seizure which it said was not in accordance with law. The learned District Magistrate did not accept the contentions now raised by the petitioner and examining the whole matter in depth held that the petitioner had only 42 quintals of rice in stock on the date of the seizure and the rest quantity of rice i.e. (585.08-42) = 543.08 of rice should be delivered by him to the State Food Corporation at the earliest. 6. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by this order filed this writ application. 7. 6. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by this order filed this writ application. 7. When this application was admitted, the Bench passed the following interim order :- "The operation of Annexure 2 is stayed on an undertaking given by learned counsel on behalf of his client that in case this writ application fails, the petitioner shall deliver the quantity as ordered by the Court or equivalent price thereof." 8. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that Clause 3 of Procurement Order only required supply of rice and not paddy or the equivalent thereof in rice. He said, the petitioner was required to sell 50 per cent of rice produced or manufactured in its rice mill every day. He said that that was not the case here. When the seizure took place there was only 42 quintals of rice and 1579.05 quintals of paddy. We do not think that that is the correct interpretation of Clauses (3) and (5) taken together. Ricemiller, in fact, has been given option either to deliver the rice or paddy equivalent thereof; one quintal of paddy being equivalent to 66.66 kg. of rice. Then it was submitted by Mr. Singh that due to local weather conditions only 62.5% production of rice from paddy was statutorily recognised by the State Government in the previous Procurement Orders and that in the present Procurement Order only for the purpose of computation of levy one quintal of paddy has been ordered to be taken to produce 66.66 kg. of rice. His further contention was that under Clause 3, the petitioner was supposed to deliver only 50 per cent of the production made every day and not of the stock value as on 15-2-1983, the date on which Procurement Order came into force. It was also submitted that the mill of the petitioner being closed there could not be production or manufacture of rice. 9. Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for the State, said that the petitioner had kept the mill closed deliberately in order to escape the rigors of the Procurement Order. He said under the licensing condition given for milling in the Rice Milling Industries (Regulation) Act, the mill was supposed to give fortnightly return to the licensing authority and that no such return was filed by the petitioner. 10. The learned District Magistrate in his impugned order noted that reading of Cl. He said under the licensing condition given for milling in the Rice Milling Industries (Regulation) Act, the mill was supposed to give fortnightly return to the licensing authority and that no such return was filed by the petitioner. 10. The learned District Magistrate in his impugned order noted that reading of Cl. 3 of the Hindi version of the Procurement Order would make it clear that levy was to be charged also on the stock of rice available on 15-2-1983 and that 50 per cent of the rice produced or manufactured by the mill during the Agriculture year 1982-83 was to be taken as levied rice. The Agriculture Year as per the Procurement Order means Agriculture Year commencing on lst October, 1982 and ending on 30th September, 1983. It was, therefore, held that 50 per cent of the stock of rice on 15-2-1983 was to be delivered under levy and 50 per cent of daily production further was also to be procured. It was also noted that had the mill been under regular production, as calculated by the District Supply Officer in his report, 1221.08 quintals of rice would have been delivered by the petitioner on the date of the seizure, but due to closure only 541.00 quintals of rice had so far been delivered. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to deliver 585.08 quintals of rice to the District Manager, State Food Corporation, Saharsa. 11. We are inclined to agree with the reasonings given by the learned District Magistrate in his impugned order dated September 26, 1983. The petitioner could not avoid delivery of rice as per the Procurement Order on the spacious plea that its mill remained-closed. It could have supplied paddy instead. The Procurement Order was issued for maintaining the supplies of rice and for securing its equitable distribution and availability at fair prices and such an object could not be defeated on technical pleas sought to be raised by the petitioner. 12. Keeping in view the preamble of the Essential Commodities Act and the object for which the Procurement Order was issued, we do not find any merit in the submission made by the petitioner. The application, therefore, fails and is dismissed. 13. The working of the interim order, noted above, presented us some difficulty. 12. Keeping in view the preamble of the Essential Commodities Act and the object for which the Procurement Order was issued, we do not find any merit in the submission made by the petitioner. The application, therefore, fails and is dismissed. 13. The working of the interim order, noted above, presented us some difficulty. We think the interest of justice would be served if we require the petitioner to deliver to the State Food Corporation 543.08 quintals of rice within one month from today. The petitioner shall pay cost of this petition which we quantify at Rs.1,000.00 . The cost when realised shall be payable to the Patna High Court Council of Legal Aid and Advice. A copy of this order be sent to its Secretary, 14. S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J.;- I agree. Order accordingly.