Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : In challenging the validity of the Orissa Kendu Leaves (Control of Trade) Act, 1961 (No. 28 of 1961) (hereinafter called the Act), this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution raises an important question about the scope and effect of the provisions of Art. 19 (6). The petitioner Akadasi Padhan owns about 130 acres of land in village Bettagada, Sub-division Rairakhol in the District of Sambalpur, and in about 80 acres of the said land he grows Kendu leaves. Kendu leaves are used in the manufacture of Bidis, and so prior to 1961, the petitioner used to carry on extensive trade in the sale of Kendu leaves by transporting them to various places in and outside the District of Sambalpur. But since the Act was passed in 1961 and it came into force on January 3, 1962, the State has acquired a monopoly in the trade of Kendu leaves, and that has put severe restrictions on the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Art. 19 (1) (f) and (g). That in substance, is the basis of the present petition.

2. The petition alleges that, in substance, the Act creates a monopoly in favour of certain individuals described as Agents by the relevant provisions of the Act, and in that sense, it is a colourable piece of legislation. Under the relevant provisions of the Act, three notifications have been issued, and the validity of these notifications is also challenged by the petition. The first notification published on January 8, 1962 under S. 5 of the Act? gives a schedule of the Districts: the number of units in which the districts are divided and the local areas covered by the said units. The District of Sambalpur in which the petitioner resides has been divided into five units and the petitioners lands fall under units 2 and 5. On January 10, 1962 applications were called from persons who desired to be appointed as Agents of the Government of Orissa for purchase of and trade in Kendu leaves, and the notification by which these applications were called for made it clear that the Government reserved to itself the right to reject any or all applications in respect of any unit without assigning any reason whatsoever. Then followed the notification of January 25, 1962, which prescribed the price for the Kendu leaves @ 50 leaves per naya paisa. This notification stated that the said price had been fixed by the State Government in consultation with the Advisory Committee appointed under S. 4 of the Act. The last notification to which reference must be made is the notification which was issued on March 10, 1962, making certain corrections in the units of the local areas notified by the notification of January 8, 1962. The validity of these notifications is challenged by the petitioner on the around that the relevant provisions under which the said notifications are issued are invalid, and also on the general ground that the Act in its entirety is ultra vires.

3. The petition has averred that Ss. 3, 5, 6 and 16 of the Act are invalid because they contravene Art. 14, but this part of the case has not been argued before us. The main attack has been directed generally against the validity of the whole Act and Ss. 3 and 4 in particular on the ground that they violate Art. 19 (1) (f) and (g). The relief claimed by the petitioner is that this Court may declare that the whole Act is ultra vires and restrain respondent No. 1 the State of Orissa, from giving effect either to the provisions of the impugned notifications or to the provisions of the impugned Act.

4. The challenge made by the petitioner to the validity of the Act and the relevant notifications is met by respondent No. 1 mainly on the ground that the Orissa Legislature was competent to pass the Act and that its provisions do not contravene Art. 19 (1) (f) or (g). It is urged that under Art. 19 (6), the State Legislature is empowered to create a State Monopoly in any trade or business and a monopoly thus created cannot be successfully challenged either under Art. 19 (1) (f)