Judgment : 1. Sri Kalyan Basavaraj, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India is directed to take notice for respondent No.1. The Government pleader is directed to take notice for respondents 2 to 4. 2. The petitions are considered for final disposal having regard to the facts and circumstances. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are the Rice Millers and also traders in food grains. It is claimed that the first respondent, in exercise of power conferred under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, had made the order, called the Removal of (Licensing requirements, stock limits and movement restrictions) on Special Food Stuffs Order, 202 and the same is extended to all States and Union Territories of India and came into force in 2002. Therefore, by virtue of the same, there was no restriction on the movement of rice and paddy from one place to another. However, the second respondent and their Enforcement Officers, on misinterpretation of the order passed by the first respondent and placing reliance on the Karnataka Rice Milling Regulations Rice and Paddy Procurement (LEVY) Order 1999, are causing constant obstruction to transportation of rice and paddy both within the State as well as outside the State. It is this which is ought to be questioned in the present writ petitions. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would draw attention of the Court to a Notification dated 11.10.2012 at Annexure-“G” to the petitions, which declares the policy of the State to commence procurement under Mill Point Levy operation for Kharif Marketing Season 2012-13, and that since the Government of India was yet to announce the price of levy rice for Kharif Marketing Season 2012-13, it was decided to fix the levy rice price on adhoc basis at the rates fixed for 2011-12. Therefore, the State Government shall make payment to the millers as per the rates given in the table appended to the notification and has permitted the Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation to purchase rice under Mill Point Levy and minimum sale price as per the terms and conditions stipulated by the Government Notification in the year 1999. It is by virtue of this that the respondents are seeking to prevent the transportation of rice and paddy. 5. It is by virtue of this that the respondents are seeking to prevent the transportation of rice and paddy. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in similar situations where the respondent-authorities sought to prevent transportation, this Court has consistently held that such action is unlawful and would run counter to Government orders passed by the Central Government referred to hereinabove and has declared that no restrictions on movement of paddy and rice from one place to another both within State or outside the State and that has been followed over the years by several orders appended to the writ petition. 6. The learned Government Pleader would not seriously dispute this position. 7. Therefore, the present petition is allowed. Notwithstanding Annexure-“G”, it is declared that there can be no restriction on movement of paddy and rice both within or outside the State.