ORDER : M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J. 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No. 1 in issuing proceedings dated 27.07.2020 and the consequential proceedings of respondent No. 2 dated 30.07.2020 imposing penalty upon the petitioner for non-delivery of Custom Milled Rice by giving retrospective effect to the penal clause contained in GO MS. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020 for the purpose of supplying paddy to the petitioner for the Kharif Marketing Season 2019-20 as arbitrary, discriminative and in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to supply paddy to the petitioner for Custom Milling for the Kharif Marketing Season 2019-20. 2. The petitioner is the rice mill by name "Gokula Krishna Rice Mill" filed this petition through its managing partner. The petitioner is carrying rice milling business having obtained requisite permission. During the year 2011-12 the petitioner undertook Custom Milling Rice work entrusted by respondent No. 1. Due to the inferior quality of paddy supplied by the respondent authorities, the petitioner incurred heavy loss which resulted in temporary closure of the mill and there are over dues payable by the petitioner. 3. In addition to the setback, there was a continuous crop failure and only during the year 2019 there is considerable harvest. The petitioner intended to reopen the mill, thereby addressed the respondents, intimating willingness to clear the balance dues and sought permission to take up Custom Milling Rice work. 4. While, the representation of the petitioner is pending, the respondent authorities interfered with the running of the rice mill of the petitioner with a threat to seize the paddy stocks lying in the mill. The petitioner agreed to clear the pending dues in the manner suggested by the respondents. However, without any reason or cause, the authorities interfered with the working of the mill with a threat to seize the paddy stock lying at the mill premises. 5. In view of the threat posed by the respondents authorities, the petitioner approached this Court, filed writ petition No. 6970 of 2020 seeking a direction to the respondents to accept the amount due payable by the petitioner and for a further direction not to interfere with the business of the petitioner. 5. In view of the threat posed by the respondents authorities, the petitioner approached this Court, filed writ petition No. 6970 of 2020 seeking a direction to the respondents to accept the amount due payable by the petitioner and for a further direction not to interfere with the business of the petitioner. In the said writ petition, this Court was pleased to pass orders on 16.03.2020 permitting the petitioner to pay the amount due. Accordingly, on 23.03.2020, the petitioner addressed a letter to the respondent No. 2 along with a copy of the aforesaid order and on 06.04.2020 respondent No. 2 issued reply to the petitioner directing him to pay the balance due by way of demand draft to consider supply of paddy for Custom Milling Rice on production of fresh bank guarantee. Upon payment made by the petitioner, the Joint Collector, SPSR Nellore passed orders dated 10.06.2020 accepting the value of Custom Milling Rice dues and permitted the petitioner to carry on milling activities. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner approached respondent No. 2 and requested to supply paddy for delivery of Custom Milling Rice and further assured that sufficient bank guarantee will be furnished as security against supply of paddy. 6. When the petitioner followed up with respondent No. 2, it was informed that a communication is sent to respondent No. 1 on 12.06.2020 by way of email, narrating the chronology of events and compliance on part of the petitioner as directed by this Court in the writ petition No. 6970 of 2020. 7. Since, 12.06.2020, the petitioner has been awaiting the approval of respondent No. 1, on whose directions, respondent No. 2 will supply paddy to the petitioner for delivery of Custom Milling Rice. However, there is no response from respondent No. 1 as on date. 8. While the matter stood thus, respondent No. 1 issued proceedings dated 27.07.2020 requesting respondent No. 2 to direct the petitioner to pay penalty @ 1.5 times of paddy cost. Pursuant to the said proceedings, the respondent No. 2 addressed the petitioner on 30.07.2020 directing to pay penalty @ 1.5 times of paddy cost. 9. It is specifically contended that the proceedings of respondent No. 1 are based on the provisions of G.O. Ms. Pursuant to the said proceedings, the respondent No. 2 addressed the petitioner on 30.07.2020 directing to pay penalty @ 1.5 times of paddy cost. 9. It is specifically contended that the proceedings of respondent No. 1 are based on the provisions of G.O. Ms. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020 which inter alia empowers the district administration to visit the rice mills to verify the stocks physically and in the event of shortfall of stocks to take action for recovery of the cost with penalty @ 1.5 times of paddy cost from the miller. But, such G.O. cannot be given retrospective effect and the respondents are not entitled to recover the amount. 10. It is further contended that the procurement policy of paddy and rice for Kharif Marketing Season 2011-12 was governed by G.O. Ms. No. 24 dated 03.10.2011 under which there is no such penal provision. During 2011-12 season, the State used to impose levy on the rice millers, whereby rice Millers/Traders shall deliver 75% of the rice milled pertaining to all varieties other than superfine preferred varieties to the FCI under mill levy. As per Procurement Policy for Kharif Marketing Season 2011-12, in cases of failure by rice millers in converting the paddy to rice within the stipulated time, the Collectors may furnish to the Food Corporation of India, the details of defaulters together with mill-wise quantities given for custom milling, quantity milled and the quantity yet to be milled so that the Food Corporation of India may deduct the equivalent quantity of resultant rice for the paddy yet to be milled against the levy rice being delivered by such rice miller. However, the respondent authorities were not empowered to levy any penalty on the defaulted millers. In the year 2014 the Government of India issued proceedings directing the State Governments not to impose any levy on rice from the millers with effect from 01.10.2015. Accordingly, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O. Ms. No. 22 dated 03.11.2015 implementing the instruction of Government of India and issued the notification thereby deleting clause 3 and 4 of AP Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984. The proceedings of the Joint Collector dated 10.06.2020 clearly states that the petitioner has cleared the dues as directed by this Court, thereby the petitioner is entitled to claim paddy for custom milling. 11. The proceedings of the Joint Collector dated 10.06.2020 clearly states that the petitioner has cleared the dues as directed by this Court, thereby the petitioner is entitled to claim paddy for custom milling. 11. The specific contention of the petitioner is that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly made to have retrospective operation. At any rate, Clause 5 of the Policy for Kharif Marketing Season 2019-20 categorically states that the guidelines are applicable for 2019-20 season. Thus, the same cannot be given retrospective effect. Therefore, the action of the respondents in demanding the petitioner to pay penalty @ 1.5 times of value of paddy is illegal and arbitrary, requested to issue a direction as stated above. 12. The respondents filed counter denying material allegations while admitting certain facts regarding failure to supply Custom Milling Rice to a tune of 342.448 Mts which works out to 511.116 Mts of paddy, filing of writ petition, order passed therein and payment of amount in compliance of direction issued by this Court towards value of deficit value of supply of Custom Milled Rice. The respondents also contended that the respondents are entitled to levy penalty of 1.5 times of value of paddy in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 1 Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department dated 01.01.2020, but mere acceptance of the amount as directed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 6970 of 2020 does not ipso facto confer any right on the petitioner to claim benefit. However, the acceptance is subject to final decision to be taken by the authorities concerned. 13. It is further contended that in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020, the petitioner has to pay the balance of 50% amount for the defaulted quantity i.e. at the rate of 0.5 of the amount as penalty, and the said G.O. can be given retrospective effect in the absence of any specific direction in the said G.O. Ms. No. 1 to give effect prospectively. As on today, as per G.O. Ms. No. 1, the respondents are entitled to claim penalty at the rate of 1.5 times on the amount due towards the value of paddy. 14. It is further contended that despite the said G.O., there was an agreement between respondent No. 1 and M/s. The Nellore Rice Millers and Dealers Association (Reg. As on today, as per G.O. Ms. No. 1, the respondents are entitled to claim penalty at the rate of 1.5 times on the amount due towards the value of paddy. 14. It is further contended that despite the said G.O., there was an agreement between respondent No. 1 and M/s. The Nellore Rice Millers and Dealers Association (Reg. No. 76/86) for supply of paddy for Custom Milling to the Rice millers, who are members of association. According to the terms and conditions, more particularly condition (iv), the petitioner is liable to pay penalty as prescribed by the Corporation from time to time. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay the penalty both in terms of agreement, so also in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020 giving retrospective effect to the said G.O., consequently the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief in the writ petition, requested to dismiss the petition. 15. Sri P. Badrinath, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterated the contentions urged in the petition and demonstrated that G.O. Ms. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020 has no application to the transaction that took place during Kharif Marketing Season 2011-12, and the said transaction is governed by G.O. Ms. No. 24 dated 03.10.2011, which was in force by the time. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner and denial to supply paddy for Custom Rice Milling is a serious legality. When the G.O. Ms. No. 1 is passed on 01.01.2020, it cannot be given retrospective effect since, it is an ex post facto order and in the absence of any recital in the G.O. Ms. No. 1 giving retrospective effect, it is presumed to be prospective in application; apart from that such right accrued to the petitioner cannot be taken away in view of the provisions of General Clauses Act. Consequently, the act of respondents in levying penalty at the rate of 1.5 times on the value of paddy equivalent to defaulted custom milled rice is illegal and arbitrary, requested to issue a direction as stated supra. 16. Sri P. Hemachandra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1, reiterated the contentions urged in the counter and mainly relied on the agreement entered into between respondent No. 1 and M/s. The Nellore Rice Millers and Dealers Association, apart from that when a G.O. Ms. 16. Sri P. Hemachandra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1, reiterated the contentions urged in the counter and mainly relied on the agreement entered into between respondent No. 1 and M/s. The Nellore Rice Millers and Dealers Association, apart from that when a G.O. Ms. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020 is issued, it can be given retrospective effect in the absence of any restrictive operation, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 17. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the points that arise for consideration are: (1) Whether respondent No. 1 Corporation is entitled to collect penalty at the rate of 1.5 times paddy cost from the petitioner giving retrospective effect to G.O. Ms. No. 1 Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CS.I) Department dated 01.01.2020 though such transaction pertaining to Kharif Marketing Season 2011-12, governed by G.O. Ms. No. 24 dated 03.10.2011? If not, whether the demand made by respondent No. 1 is legal and the same deserves to be upheld? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim supply of paddy for custom milling in view of payment of amount as directed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 6970 of 2020 on 16.03.2020? POINT Nos. 1 and 2: 18. Undisputedly, the petitioner failed to supply custom milled rice during Kharif Marketing Season 2011-12, the default committed by the petitioner though explained, which is not required to be adjudicated by this Court since the petitioner himself admitted about his failure to supply Custom Milled Rice to a tune of 342.448 Mts. The petitioner also filed writ petition No. 6970 of 2020, obtained interim order, whereby directed the respondents to receive the value of paddy equivalent to deficit quantity of Custom Milling Rice for the Kharif marketing season 2011-12. The only dispute is with regard to entitlement of respondents to claim penalty at the rate of 1.5 times of the value of paddy equivalent to milling rice defaulted by the petitioner giving retrospective effect to the G.O. Ms. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020 despite the transaction covered by the season 2011-2012 governed by the G.O. Ms. No. 24 dated 03.10.2011. 19. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020 despite the transaction covered by the season 2011-2012 governed by the G.O. Ms. No. 24 dated 03.10.2011. 19. As the petitioner committed default and paid value of Custom Milling Rice as directed by this Court in W.P. No. 6970 of 2020 on 16.03.2020, the payment of amount towards value of defaulted Custom Milled Rice is not in dispute and the respondents categorically admitted about the said payment in the counter while contending that the said payment does not enure any benefit to the petitioner and still, respondent No. 1 Corporation is entitled to claim value of defaulted Custom Milled Rice as per G.O. Ms. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020. 20. In view of the rival contentions, what is to be examined by this Court is, whether G.O. Ms. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020 is to be given retrospective effect enabling respondent No. 1 to impose penalty at the rate of 1.5 times of the value of defaulted Custom Milling Rice. 21. G.O. Ms. No. 1 was issued on 01.01.2020, whereas the transaction took place during the Kharif Marketing Season 2011-12, and those transactions are governed by G.O. Ms. No. 24 Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies (CSI) Department dated 03.10.2011 undisputedly. 22. As per clause 31 of G.O. Ms. No. 24 dated 03.10.2011, Rice Millers have to undertake custom milling of paddy, as and when the farmers bring the paddy to the rice mills, keeping in view the explanation under clause 10 (1) of the A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 at the rate stipulated or on mutually agreed terms/conditions between the millers and the farmers. 23. As per clause 32 of G.O. Ms. No. 24 dated 03.10.2011, the Rice Millers may undertake simultaneously the custom milling of paddy procured by the State Agencies and Food Corporation of India, as per the agreed terms and conditions and at the rates and norms fixed by the Government of India. The Collectors may allot the paddy purchased at the S.H.W.G. of IKP/DCMS/PACSs centres/PPCs/Market Yards etc., to rice mills for immediate custom milling without storage of the paddy. The Collectors may allot the paddy purchased at the S.H.W.G. of IKP/DCMS/PACSs centres/PPCs/Market Yards etc., to rice mills for immediate custom milling without storage of the paddy. The rice millers, within 15 days from the date of receipt of paddy, have to complete custom milling of paddy and deliver the resultant rice, either as raw rice or boiled rice, as prescribed by the Government or the State Agency concerned, for the paddy handed over during the Kharif Marketing Season 2011-12 by the A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., and S.H. Gs/DCMS/PACSs of IKP. The Collectors may direct the rice millers to mill the paddy handed over to them by the State agency and deliver custom milled rice to the FCI along with the levy rice if necessary by fixing a ratio between the mill levy delivery and the custom milled rice delivery. The Collectors shall review the entire process of custom milling operations regularly and take necessary action against the rice millers, who fail to do custom milling of paddy procured by the Self Help Women Groups of Indira Kranthi Patham and A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., duly following the procedure in vogue. In cases of failure by rice millers in converting the paddy to rice within the stipulated time, the Collectors may furnish to the Food Corporation of India, the details of defaulters together with mill-wise quantities given for custom milling, quantity milled and the quantity yet to be milled so that the Food Corporation of India may deduct the equivalent quantity of resultant rice for the paddy yet to be milled against the levy rice being delivered by such rice miller. The delivery of custom milled rice will be in addition to the performance expectation of 70 (Seventy) lakh tonnes of mill levy rice indicated to the State. 24. No penal provision is incorporated in G.O. Ms. No. 24 dated 03.10.2011 that governed the transaction of custom milling during the Kharif Marketing Season 2011-2012. At best, the respondents may take appropriate action strictly adhering to G.O. Ms. No. 24 dated 03.10.2011 in the event of any default committed by the rice millers in return of milled rice. Therefore, G.O. Ms. No. 24 alone will govern the transaction of custom milling during Kharif Marketing Season 2011-2012. 25. At best, the respondents may take appropriate action strictly adhering to G.O. Ms. No. 24 dated 03.10.2011 in the event of any default committed by the rice millers in return of milled rice. Therefore, G.O. Ms. No. 24 alone will govern the transaction of custom milling during Kharif Marketing Season 2011-2012. 25. It is an undisputed fact that the respondents imposed penalty of 1.5 times on the petitioner on the value of defaulted custom milled rice in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020. The clause, which enables respondent No. 1 Corporation to levy penalty of 1.5 times, is extracted hereunder. "It is mandatory to ensure realization of CMR within 15 days from the date handing over of paddy to the rice miller. The District Administration is empowered to visit the rice mills and to verify the stocks physically and in the event of shortfall of stocks, the District Administration shall take action for recovery of the cost with penalty @ 1.5 times of paddy cost from the miller apart from initiation of other civil and criminal proceedings." 26. Thus, the G.O. Ms. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020 permits levy of penalty of 1.5 times of paddy cost from the miller. 27. Even according to G.O. Ms. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020 operational guidelines are issued for smooth procurement of paddy for Kharif Marketing Season 2019-20 as per clause 5. On the face of the said G.O., it is applicable only for Kharif Marketing Season 2019-2020 and the same cannot be given retrospective effect for the Kharif Marketing Season 2011-2012, during which the petitioner committed default in supply of Custom Milled Rice to a tune of 342.448 Mts. 28. G.O. Ms. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020 was issued only for procurement of rice for Kharif Marketing Season 2019-20 and the same cannot be given retrospective effect enabling respondent No. 1 to collect penalty as prescribed in G.O. Ms. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020. 29. Normally, any Government Order will be given prospective effect, but in certain circumstances the Courts by interpretation of amended provisions of the Act concluded that such amendments be given retrospective effect if the amended provision deals with procedure to be followed for prosecuting the accused. There are two views under Interpretation of Statues. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020. 29. Normally, any Government Order will be given prospective effect, but in certain circumstances the Courts by interpretation of amended provisions of the Act concluded that such amendments be given retrospective effect if the amended provision deals with procedure to be followed for prosecuting the accused. There are two views under Interpretation of Statues. One is "the law looks forward, not backward" based on the maxim "Lex Prospicit non respicit", which means that laws are generally deemed or presumed not to have retroactive. Similarly, there is another maxim i.e. "Lex De Futuro, Judex De Praeterito", that means the law provides for the future. 30. Therefore, Ex Post Facto Law, which deals with substantive rights of the parties have to be given prospective effect, but in case of procedural laws, there are conflicting views. Another legal maxim "Nova Constitutio futuris formam imponere debet non praeteritis", which means new law ought to regulate what is to follow, not the past. The same view point has been taken in "Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited v. Union of India and others (2012) 11 SCC 1 ", where the Supreme Court held that this principle operates until and unless there is an express provision in the statute stating/indicating retrospective applicability of the statutes. 31. In the recent judgment of constitutional bench in "Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, New Delhi v. Vatika Township Private Limited : (2015) 1 SCC 1 " the Supreme Court held that if a legislation confers a benefit on some persons but without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person or on the public generally, and where to confer such benefit appears to have been the legislators object, then the presumption would be that such a legislation, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant it to be given a retrospective effect. This exactly is the justification to treat procedural provisions as retrospective. In such cases, retrospectivity is attached to benefit the persons in contradistinction to the provision imposing some burden or liability where the presumption attaches towards prospectivity. Thus, legislations which modified accrued rights or which impose obligations or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as prospective unless the legislative intent is clearly to give the enactment a retrospective effect; unless the legislation is for purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former legislation or to explain a former legislation. Thus, legislations which modified accrued rights or which impose obligations or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as prospective unless the legislative intent is clearly to give the enactment a retrospective effect; unless the legislation is for purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former legislation or to explain a former legislation. 32. The law which enacted subsequent to an act done can be said to be Ex post Facto Law, that means law which enacted after the act. An ex post facto law or retroactive law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. Such laws can be given prospective or retrospective effect is the question to be decided by the Court and the same depending upon the intention of law and language used in the newly enacted law. 33. In "New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Misra, Adult : (1975) 2 SCC 840 " the Full Bench of Apex Court considered the effect of amendment based on principle of limitation and held that the change in law was merely a change of forum i.e. a change of adjectival or procedural law and not of substantive law. It is a well-established proposition that such a change of law operates retrospectively and the person has to go to the new forum even if his cause of action or right of action accrued prior to the change of forum and the person will have a vested right of action but not a vested right of forum. 34. In "Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1994 SC 2623 " the Apex Court laid down certain guidelines with regard to interpretation of laws, which are as follows: "(i) A statute which affects substantive rights is presumed to be prospective in operation, unless made retrospective, either expressly or by necessary intendment, whereas a Statute which merely affects procedure, unless such a construction is texturally impossible, is presumed to be retrospective in its application, should not be given an extended meaning, and should be strictly confined to its clearly defined limits. (ii) Law relating to forum and limitation is procedural in nature, whereas law relating to right of action and right of appeal, even though remedial, is substantive in nature. (ii) Law relating to forum and limitation is procedural in nature, whereas law relating to right of action and right of appeal, even though remedial, is substantive in nature. (iii) Every litigant has a vested right in substantive law, but no such right exists in procedural law. (iv) A procedural Statute should not generally speaking be applied retrospectively, where the result would be to create new disabilities or obligations, or to impose new duties in respect of transactions already accomplished. (v) A Statute which not only changes the procedure but also creates a new rights and liabilities, shall be construed to be prospective in operation, unless otherwise provided, either expressly or by necessary implication." 35. The Apex Court in "Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra" (referred supra) laid down certain guidelines. As per guideline Nos. (iv) and (v), the amended provision, which creates new right or imposes new obligation on any of the parties to the criminal prosecution, such amendment cannot be given retrospective effect. 36. In "Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh, (1990) 1 SCC 445 " the Apex Court expressed similar view as regards the element of retrospectivity. The English courts also laid that the Rule that an Act of Parliament is not to be given retrospective effect applies only to statutes which affect the vested rights; it does not apply to statutes which alter the form of procedure or the admissibility of evidence, or the effect which the courts give to evidence; if the new Act affects matters of procedure only, then, prima facie, it applies to all actions pending as well as future. The presumption against retrospection does not apply to legislation concerned merely with matters of procedure or of evidence; on the contrary, provisions of that nature are to be construed as retrospective unless there is a clear indication that such was not the intention of Parliament. 37. In "Nani Gopal Mitra v. State of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 1636 " the Apex Court laid down certain guidelines for interpretation of procedural provisions of any enactment in the lines of "Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra" (referred supra). 38. 37. In "Nani Gopal Mitra v. State of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 1636 " the Apex Court laid down certain guidelines for interpretation of procedural provisions of any enactment in the lines of "Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra" (referred supra). 38. In "Purbanchal Cables and Conductors Private Limited and Others v. Assam State Electricity Board and Others, 2012 (7) SCC 462 " the Apex Court held that "there is no doubt about the fact that the Act is a substantive law as vested rights of entitlement to a higher rate of interest in case of delayed payment accrues in favour of the supplier and a corresponding liability is imposed on the buyer, time and again, has observed that any substantive law shall operate prospectively unless retrospective operation is clearly made out in the language of the statute. Only a procedural or declaratory law operates retrospectively as there is no vested right in procedure. In the absence of any express legislative intendment of the retrospective application of the Act, and by virtue of the fact that the Act creates or imposes a new liability of a high rate of interest against the buyer, the Act cannot be construed to have retrospective effect. Since the Act envisages that the supplier has an accrued right to claim a higher rate of interest in terms of the Act, the same can only said to accrue for sale agreements after the date of commencement of the Act." 39. In "L'Office Cherifien des Phosphates v. Yamashita-Shinnih on Steamship Company Ltd. [1994] 1 AC 486 (HL)" it is clarified that the legislations which modified accrued rights or which impose obligations or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as prospective unless the legislative intent is clearly to give the enactment a retrospective effect. 40. The Judgment of Apex Court in "Purbanchal Cables and Conductors Private Limited and Others v. Assam State Electricity Board and Others" (referred supra) has direct application. Moreover, the G.O. Ms. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020 if applied to past transaction, it will take away the right accrued to the petitioner and creates new liability to pay penalty @ 1.5 times on the value of paddy, such G.O. cannot be given retrospective effect in view of the judgments of Constitutional Bench and Full Bench. Hence, this Court can safely conclude, without any hesitation, that G.O. Ms. Hence, this Court can safely conclude, without any hesitation, that G.O. Ms. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020 shall not be given retrospective effect to create new obligation or liability. 41. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the judgments referred above, the G.O. Ms. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020 cannot be given retrospective effect to collect penalty since the same is applicable only for procurement of paddy for Kharif Marketing Season 2019-20, apart from that it is ex post facto Government Order. Hence, the contention of the learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1 that G.O. Ms. No. 1 can be given retrospective effect is hereby rejected, more particular clause 5 referred above. 42. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 deals with effect of repeal. "6 Effect of repeal.--Where this Act, or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not-- (a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or (b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or (d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or (e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid, and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed." 43. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is in pari materia to Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act. In view of this provision, right accrued to the petitioner cannot be taken away by later Act by repealing the earlier Act. 44. In the facts of the present case, Kharif Marketing Season 2011-12 was governed by G.O. Ms. No. 24 dated 03.10.2011, whereas Kharif Marketing Season 2019-20 was governed by G.O. Ms. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020. Therefore, G.O. Ms. In view of this provision, right accrued to the petitioner cannot be taken away by later Act by repealing the earlier Act. 44. In the facts of the present case, Kharif Marketing Season 2011-12 was governed by G.O. Ms. No. 24 dated 03.10.2011, whereas Kharif Marketing Season 2019-20 was governed by G.O. Ms. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020. Therefore, G.O. Ms. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020 cannot take away the right or privilege accrued to the petitioner and shall not create any obligation or liability on the petitioner. 45. Therefore, by applying G.O. Ms. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020, the petitioner cannot be denied paddy for custom milling and the respondents are not entitled to recover the penalty prescribed in G.O. Ms. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020 for the alleged default committed during Kharif Marketing Season 2011-12 giving retrospective effect to G.O. Ms. No. 1. Hence, basing on G.O. Ms. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020 the petitioner cannot be compelled to pay penalty of 1.5 times of paddy cost. Similarly, the penal provisions incorporated in G.O. Ms. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020 cannot be applied to the transaction that took place during Kharif Marketing Season 2011-12. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to claim relief in the present petition to declare the action of respondent No. 1 in issuing proceedings dated 27.07.2020 and the consequential proceedings of respondent No. 2 dated 30.07.2020 imposing penalty upon the petitioner for non-delivery of Custom Milled Rice by giving retrospective effect to the penal clause contained in G.O. Ms. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020 for the purpose of supplying paddy to the petitioner for the Kharif Marketing Season 2019-20 as arbitrary and illegal. 46. The other relief claimed by the petitioner is to direct the respondents to supply paddy for Custom Milling for the Kharif Marketing Season 2019-20. But, this Court cannot issue such positive direction to the respondents for supply of paddy for Custom Milling since respondent No. 1 - Corporation has to decide whether the petitioner is entitled to claim supply of paddy for Custom Milling notwithstanding the G.O. Ms. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020. Therefore, respondent No. 1 - Corporation is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for supply of paddy for Custom Milling without giving effect to G.O. Ms. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020 governing Kharif Marketing Season 2019-20 and pass appropriate order. Accordingly, the points are answered. 47. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020. Therefore, respondent No. 1 - Corporation is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for supply of paddy for Custom Milling without giving effect to G.O. Ms. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020 governing Kharif Marketing Season 2019-20 and pass appropriate order. Accordingly, the points are answered. 47. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part declaring the action of respondent No. 1 in issuing proceedings dated 27.07.2020 and the consequential proceedings of respondent No. 2 dated 30.07.2020 imposing penalty on the petitioner in respect of delivery of Custom Milling Rice by giving retrospective effect to the penal provisions contained in G.O. Ms. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020 for the purpose of supplying paddy to the petitioner for the Kharif Marketing Season 2019-20 as arbitrary and illegal. The respondent No. 1 - Andhra Pradesh Civil Supplies Corporation is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for supply of paddy for Custom Milling without giving effect to G.O. Ms. No. 1 dated 01.01.2020 governing Kharif Marketing Season 2019-20 and pass appropriate order. No costs. 48. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.