ORDER 1. Food Corporation of India has preferred this batch of appeals against b the judgment and order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court holding that the power vested in the purchase officer under clause 6(1) of the A.P. Rice Procurement Levy Order, 1984 to direct delivery of the rice to a place which may even be more than 25/30 km, is unreasonable and places a restriction on the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The judgment of the learned Single Judge has been upheld in appeal, by the Division Bench. 2. The undisputed facts are that the A.P. Rice Procurement Levy Order, 1984, makes it obligatory for the rice millers to deliver certain amount of rice to Food Corporation of India at a price fixed by the Central Government. Accordingly, as envisaged under the procurement order, the levy rice has been made available to Food Corporation of India by the rice millers. In this connection clause 6 and 8 are relevant for the purposes of the point involved in the present appeals and would be beneficial to be looked at. Clauses 6 and 8 read as under: "6. Delivery of levy rice.-(1) The rice required to be sold to Food Corporation/State Corporation under clause 3 and clause 4 shall be delivered by the licensed miller or the licensed dealer, as the case may be, to the purchase officer in such lots, in such manner at such place and at such time as the Government or Food Corporation/State Corporation or the purchase officer may direct. 8. In the case of delivery of levy rice at a place other than the mill premises or the business premises of the licensed miller or the licensed dealer, as the case may be, he shall be entitled to the payment of other charges incidental to such delivery including transportation charges, as regulated in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government from time to time." 3. From a perusal of the above two provisions it is clear that amongst others the purchase officer has also the power to direct delivery of the rice "in such manner at such place and at such time" as it may direct. In exercise of the above power the purchase officer seems to have issued Notification Lr. No. S&C.15/28/94-Cont. dated 12-12-1994. From a perusal of the above two provisions it is clear that amongst others the purchase officer has also the power to direct delivery of the rice "in such manner at such place and at such time" as it may direct. In exercise of the above power the purchase officer seems to have issued Notification Lr. No. S&C.15/28/94-Cont. dated 12-12-1994. Subject of the said notification is "Acceptance of boiled rice at road-fed godowns -instruction issued- Reg." According to the said notification rice millers were advised to deliver the boiled rice stocks at railhead godowns wherever possible otherwise at FCI railway siding god owns for which the transportation charges beyond the free distance can be reimbursed as per the eligibility. At this juncture it may also be useful to note clause 8, quoted above, according to which rice millers who deliver levy rice at a place other than mill premises would be entitled to payment of charges incidental to such delivery including transportation charges as may be regulated by the Government from time to time. 4. The Rice Millers Association challenged the aforesaid notification dated 12-12-1994 on various grounds. The learned Single Judge considering the matter observed that it would entail not only the expenditure to the miller but also cause great inconvenience to them, in securing the transport "from a faraway place, to load the rice into the lorries, travel along with the lorries to the faraway place and to unload them at the place directed by the Corporation; all this should be done by the miller at his own expenditure and labour. There are many villages where it is highly difficult to procure lorry transport". The learned Single Judge further goes on to observe that it not only involves waste of manpower but freight charges, etc. would not be reimbursed. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge comparatively holds that if this is done by the purchase officer it will be easier for them to procure transportation and the miller would not be put to inconvenience and expenditure. It is further observed that in the case in hand the miller is required to hand over the rice which is more than 50 km from Janagaon. It is further observed that in the case in hand the miller is required to hand over the rice which is more than 50 km from Janagaon. According to the learned Single Judge any distance beyond 25/30 km would not be placed reasonably accessible to the millers and certainly not at a place which is situated 50 km from the place from the mill. In this view of the matter the learned Single Judge held that clause 6(1) of the Levy Order empowers the FCI/purchase officer with such powers which amounts to unreasonable restriction on the right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. We also note the observation made by the learned Single Judge a little later to the effect "what is reasonably convenient, accessible and nearby place to the miller in a particular case depends upon the facts of each case". After this observation it is found in the case in hand that it was an unreasonable direction to deliver the rice at a place which is at a distance of 50 km. The abovesaid order has been upheld by the Division Bench in appeal. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the order passed by the purchase officer, is for good reasons and in that connection he has taken us through the notification dated 12-12-1994. It provides for boiled rice which, it is submitted by the appellants, in any case is sent outside the State and it was decided that it may be transported to the nearest railhead or railway siding godown. It is also pointed out that on certain earlier occasions this aspect has been considered by the Finance Division and various Audit Wings and it was thought that it would curtail multiplication of handling and transport if boiled rice is delivered at the railhead instead of first transporting the rice from the mill to the godown and then again transporting it to the railhead. It is further pointed by the appellant that the said notification does not relate to other variety of rice. It is specifically for the reason that the boiled rice is consumed outside the State and has to be transported to other States by rail alone. It is further pointed by the appellant that the said notification does not relate to other variety of rice. It is specifically for the reason that the boiled rice is consumed outside the State and has to be transported to other States by rail alone. He has drawn our attention to clauses 6 and 8 of the Levy Order which provide for reimbursement of the transport charges along with other incidental charges incurred in transportation of boiled rice. We find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and further find that the notification dated 12-12-1994 could not be held to be an unreasonable restriction on the rights guaranteed under Article 19( 1 )(g) of the Constitution of India. 6. We also find no sound logic or reasoning as assigned by the learned Single Judge that it is difficult for the rice miller to arrange for transportation of boiled rice to the railhead. It may be kept in mind that the Order is not meant for the farmers, it is for the rice millers. The fact which could be taken into consideration is that normally the transportation of rice by the rice millers would be through road transport. It would be almost an everyday affair for them to arrange for road transport. It is only part of the rice that they have to deliver under the Levy Order, the rest of it is free rice. Some inconvenience or a little of expenditure involved, cannot be a good ground as held by the learned Single Judge to hold that clause 6(1) of the Levy Order vests Food Corporation of India/purchase officer with arbitrary powers. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the phraseology of clause 6(1) of the Levy Order "at such place" would mean a place nearer to rice mill. In this connection he has drawn our attention to Aiyar, P. Ramanatha: Law Lexicon, 1997 Edn., at p. 160 where the meaning of the word "at" has been given as below: " At .-Expresses the relation of presence or contract in space or time or of direction towards. At more generally means within than without in consequence of its idea of nearness, although it is sometimes used to denote exclusion rather than inclusion." 8. At more generally means within than without in consequence of its idea of nearness, although it is sometimes used to denote exclusion rather than inclusion." 8. It is difficult to infer any such meaning attributable to "at"; it can be both near and far in connection with distance. It also means denoting a place or to denote a definite place. In the notification dated 12-12-1994 we find that there is a mention of the fact that after accepting the boiled rice by road transport it is again transported by road to railhead which involved duplication of handling charges and transportation. Therefore, it was directed to deliver the boiled rice at railhead godowns wherever possible otherwise at FCI railway siding godown for which the transportation charges would be reimbursed. From a reading of the said notification it is clear that the levy rice is to be transported to the nearest railhead or railway siding godown. As indicated earlier, this step has been taken to avoid duplication of handling and transportation. It cannot be said to be an unreasonable or arbitrary step. There is a good and valid reason behind it. It is also apparent that such a question was also considered earlier by the Finance Division and other Audit Wings. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the purchase officer whimsically took the decision directing the millers to deliver boiled rice at the railhead. The learned Single Judge himself observed that it will depend on the facts of each case as to whether the power vested in clause 6(1) of the Levy Order was exercised arbitrarily or not. We find that the reasons disclosed in the notification dated 12-12-1994 itself amply explain the reason for delivery of boiled rice at railhead. 9. Insofar as it is sought to be shown to us that it is more expensive for FCI to take delivery of the levy rice from the mill to railhead, as compared to the millers that may be so for various reasons as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that they may have reached from place to place and have to make arrangement but we find that ample care has been taken in the Order itself which provides that transport charges as well as incidental charges would be reimbursable to the miller. In case there is any grievance that the charges which are being fixed by the Central Government for transport and the incidental charges are insufficient, it is always open for the respondents to approach the appropriate authorities and apply to them in that regard. This would hardly be a good reason to say that unreasonable powers have been vested in FCI or the purchase officer. 10. In view of the discussion held above, in our view the judgment rendered by the High Court is not sustainable. We, therefore, allow the appeals and set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court. 11. No order as to costs.