JUDGMENT

SEN, J.:— In exercise of the powers conferred by Cl. 18 of the Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing & Control), Order, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Order), the State Government of Rajasthan, on May 23, 1981, with the prior concurrence of the Central Government, by a notification fixed the maximum limit of wheat to be possessed by a dealer at any time at 200 quintals. The petitioners who are dealers in foodgrains challenge the constitutional validity of the impugned notification as violative of their fundamental rights under Arts. 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.

2. Clause 18 of the Order reads as follows :

18. No person shall, either by himself, or by any person on his behalf, store or have in his possession at any time any trade article mentioned in Schedule I and Schedule II in quantity exceeding the limits fixed-

(i) under an order issued by the Central Government; or

(ii) by the State Government with prior concurrence of the Central Government by issuing a notification in Official Gazette from time to time.

This Court, in M/s. Krishan Lal Praveen Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (Writ Petitions Nos. 4839 to 4845 of 1981, decided on 4-9-1981): (reported in AIR 1982 SC 29), has held that the impugned notification does not offend against the fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the judgment in that case does not stand in his way. It is urged that the impugned notification fixing the maximum quantity of wheat permitted to be possessed by a dealer at 200 quintals at any time is not only arbitrary, irrational and irrelevant and thus violative of Art. 14, but it is also an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of trade guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. We are afraid, none of these contentions can prevail.

3. In support of these contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the impugned notification on four grounds, namely, (1) No guidelines have been laid down in fixing a limit of 200 quintals for a dealer at any time as to the manner of disposal of the stock of wheat in excess of the limit so fixed; (2) There is no distinction made between a wholesale dealer and a retailer inasmuch as the maximum quantity of wheat permitted to be possessed by them is the same, i.e. 200 quintals at any time; (3) The Governmental action in fixing the maximum limit at 200 quintals displays arbitrariness as there is no differentiation made between different varieties and grades of wheat; and (4) The fixation of the maximum quantity of wheat to be possessed by a dealer at any time at 200 quintals is also arbitrary because in the case of pulses, the maximum quantity of pulses permitted to be possessed by a dealer at any time is much higher.

As already stated, the Court, in Krishan Lals case (AIR 1982 SC 29) (supra) upholding the validity of the impugned notification, observed :

The notification providing for the maximum quantity of wheat which way be possessed by any dealer at any one time is clearly designed to prevent hoarding of foodgrains and is certainly a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Art. 19 (6) of the Constitution.

In view of the above observation, it is difficult to conceive as to how the contention based on Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution can at all survive.

5. If the governmental action is arbitrary or there is no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved, it is liable to be struck down as violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Sub-s. (1) of Sec. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 provides that if the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, it may, by order, provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein. Sub-s. (2) thereof provides