JUDGMENT

SEN, J. :— These petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution and the connected special leave petitions mainly challenge the constitutional validity of the second proviso to sub-clause (1) of Cl. 11 of the Punjab Foodgrains Dealers Licensing and Price Control Order, 1978 (for short the Order), as inserted by the Punjab Foodgrains Dealers Licensing and Price Control (First Amendment) Order, 1980, with effect from March 27, 1980, as violative of Arts, 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution, as also the legality and propriety of the action of the licensing authorities in suspending the licences held by the petitioners.

2. It appears that the licences held by the petitioners who are foodgrains dealers in the State of Punjab, have been suspended by orders passed by the District Food and Supplies Controllers, Faridkot and Bhatinda, for a period not exceeding ninety days under the second proviso to sub-cl. (1) of Cl. 11 of the Order. The orders of suspension of licence in each of these cases rest on the allegation that the licensee has committed a breach of conditions Nos. 4, 8 and 10 of the licences. The petitioners have all been served with notices under the first proviso to sub-cl. (1) of Cl. 11 of the Order to show cause why their licences should not be cancelled.

3. Some of the petitioners accept that in the recent past their licences were, suspended under the second proviso to sub-cl. (1) of Cl. 11 of the Order for alleged breach of the licence conditions for having sold large quantities of wheat to dealers outside the State without disclosing the names of the purchasers in their stock registers. It, therefore, appears that the present suspension is for a repeated breach. These petitioners have filed the petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution for protection of their fundamental rights to carry on trade or business as foodgrains dealers within the meaning of Art. 19 (1) (g) read with Art. 301 thereof.

4. The other petitioners allege that because they approached the High Court by way of petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, complaining against restrictions placed on movement of wheat by rail, their licences have been suspended under the second proviso to sub-cl. (1) of Cl. 11 of the Order as a punitive measure. Incidentally, these petitioners had first moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution, but the High Court dismissed their writ petitions summarily. The connected special leave petitions are directed against the order of the High Court.

5. The State of Punjab in the counter-affidavits filed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Food and Supplies Department, Chandigarh, and the District Food and Supplies Controller, Faridkot, controvert the allegations of the petitioners. It is stated that the petitioners have been served with show-cause notices under the first proviso to sub-cl. (1) of Cl. 11 of the Order for cancellation of their licences, for breach of the licence conditions.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners seek to assail the constitutional validity of the second proviso to sub-cl. (1) of Cl. 11 of the Order on two grounds. First of these is that the second proviso to sub-cl. (1) of Cl. 11 of the Order, inserted by the Punjab Foodgrains Dealers Licensing and Price Control (First Amendment) Order, 1980, confers upon the licensing authority unguided, uncontrolled and arbitrary power to suspend a licence and it, therefore, infringes the fundamental right to carry on trade or business guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. It is also urged that the conferal of such unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary power on the licensing authority, without any guidelines whatsoever, makes the impugned proviso unconstitutional as offending Art. 14 of the Constitution. The second contention is that the suspension of the foodgrains dealers, licences held by the petitioners was mala fide and motivated, as in reality it was not on account of any breach of the licence conditions o