Judgment : 1. The petitioner is a registered consumer protection council formed by the agriculturists. 2. Admittedly, the first respondent-Government, by exercising its power conferred under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act read with the orders of the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture (Department of Food) Order No.G.S.R.316(E), dated 20.6.1972, passed the Tamil Nadu Paddy (Procurement by Levy) Order, 1974, which is applicable to agents such as Food Corporation of India as well as the second respondent-Corporation, including the sub-agents appointed by such agents and the producers, who grow, rear or cultivate by themselves or hire, labour or otherwise, whether as landlords or tenants and include a person in possession of the land or the sub-tenant. Under Clause 4 of the said order, every producer in a specified area shall, soon after harvest of each paddy crop, sell and deliver to an agent or an officer authorised by the Government in this behalf at the notified price, such quantity of paddy at the rate specified in the schedule to the said order subject to amendments as may be made by the Government from time to time to the said order. 3. Even though the Government, by exercising such power referred to above, had ordered that all purchase of paddy in Tanjore District, Chidambaram and Kattumannarkoil Taluks of South Arcot District and in certain Taluks in Tiruchirapalli and Pudukottai Districts shall be made only on or on behalf of the Government by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation as an agent of the Government, by G.O.Ms.No.339, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 30.4.1993, discontinued the monopoly system of procurement in the entire Cauvery Delta Area and permitted the farmers in the Cauvery Delta area to sell the paddy on hand in the open market. 4. 4. When such a monopoly system of procurement of paddy in the entire Cauvery Delta area was in force, the Government, having realised the fact that all the paddy procured from the farmers directly are not of the same superfine grade, but also contains various impurities due to several reasons, such as the conditions during the harvest season, threshing facility, which varies from farmer to farmer, village to village and Taluk to Taluk, proposed to collect grading charges from the farmers, which ultimately resulted in imposing a grade cut charge, which is fixed, depending upon the impurities and the quality and grade of paddy sold to the Corporation by the farmers. Aggrieved by such grade cut charges, the petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of Mandamus to forbear the respondents from imposing, charging or deducting from the support price any amount by way of grade cut in excess of Rs.2/- per quintal in respect of the second grade of fine and common varieties of paddy and in excess of Rs.2.50 per quintal in respect of the second grade of superfine variety of paddy, procured in Thanjavur District. 5. It is not disputed that the Government, by G.O.Ms. No. 339, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 30.4.1993, discontinued the monopoly system of procurement of paddy in the entire Cauvery Delta area, and consequently, the farmers in the Cauvery Delta area could sell the paddy on hand in the open market. The procurement price of paddy as well as grade cut charges are being reviewed every year by the Government, the latest being culminated in G.O.Ms.No.305, C.F. & C.P. (B1) Dept. dated 26.12.2000, which relates to the procurement of paddy during Samba, 2001 season. 6. If that be so, when the farmers are at liberty to sell their paddy in the open market, they are not compelled to sell their paddy to the second respondent Corporation at all. dated 26.12.2000, which relates to the procurement of paddy during Samba, 2001 season. 6. If that be so, when the farmers are at liberty to sell their paddy in the open market, they are not compelled to sell their paddy to the second respondent Corporation at all. If the farmers propose to sell the paddy for a better price to the second respondent Corporation, certainly they are expected to maintain the quality, satisfying the guidelines framed in this regard by the respondents, and if the paddy supplied by the farmers do not satisfy the guidelines, there comes the necessity of grading the paddy sold by the petitioner-farmers and purchased by the second respondent, and in such event, charging for such grading is inevitable, and consequently, the grade cut cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable, for the simple reason that all the farmers, whether they supply superfine grade or fine grade or common grade, cannot be treated uniformly, which would otherwise amount to a discrimination, offending Article of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I find every justification in imposing the grade cut charges, but such grade cut cannot be imposed in the case of superfine grade, once the same is satisfied and certified by the respondents themselves. 7. Since it is not permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to go into the satisfaction of the authorities as to the grading common, fine or superfine varieties supplied by the farmers and procured by the second respondent-Corporation, it is suffice to direct the respondents to review the fixation of grade cut for every crop, but not annually, as the necessity of grading depends upon the season and other related conditions even according to the respondents. It is made clear that the above direction is applicable only for future. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.