JUDGMENT

RANGANATHAN, J.— The two appeals and the three writ petitions challenge the validity of the provisions of the Mysore Silkworm Seed and Cocoon (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1959 (Act 5 of 1960), hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act. The challenge was repelled by the Karnataka High Court by its common judgment dated September 9, 1980 in two writ petitions, which is the subject matter of appeals. It is perhaps in view of this judgment that Writ Petition Nos. 5548-5550 of 1980 have been filed directly in this Court raising a similar contention.

2. At the outset, it is necessary to clarify two important points. The first is that the validity of the Act abovementioned and certain notifications issued there under were challenged in Civil Appeal Nos. 450 and 451 of 1966 and 542 of 1964. These civil appeals were disposed of by a judgment of this Court dated January 6, 1967 in State of Mysore v. K.C. Hanumiah{(1975) 2 SCC 131}. By the said judgment this Court repelled the contentions then put forward. The validity of certain provisions of the impugned Act had then been challenged on the footing that the said provisions as well as the rules made and the notifications issued there under imposed unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right of the petitioners to carry on trade or business under Articles 19(l)(g) of the Constitution. Again, the Mysore High Court in Mohammed Hussain v. State of Mysore (W.P. No. 45 of 1971) and this Court in Syed Ahmed Aga v. State of Mysore{(1975) 2 SCC 131} were called upon to consider contentions as to the validity of certain amendments effected by Mysore Act 29 of 1969 to the impugned Act, in the light of the provisions of Articles 301 to 304 of the Constitution of India. The contentions were repelled with the result that the statutory regulations providing for protection to rearers by the establishment of regulated cocoon markets and forbidding the sale or purchase of silkworm cocoons except in such markets were held to be valid. The present challenge, however, is on different grounds. The contention now is that certain amendments effected to the impugned Act by Karnataka Act 33 of 1979 have to be struck down as the State legislature was not competent to enact the same. Thus, the contention now addressed is different from those which were considered by this Court on the earlier occasions. The second aspect which we wish to clarify at the outset is that, though several grounds were raised before the High Court as well as in the writ petitions, the argument before us was limited to a single contention. This was that the impugned provisions lack legislative competence after the enactment, by Parliament, of the Central Silk Boards Act (Act 61 of 1948), (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act) which contains a declaration contemplated under Entry 52 of List I in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. We shall be addressing ourselves only to this argument.

3. Mysore Act 5 of 1960 was passed since it was considered expedient to consolidate the laws providing for the regulation of the production, supply and distribution of silkworm seed and cocoon in the State of Mysore. This Act contained several restrictions in regard to the production, supply and distribution of silkworm seed and cocoon. Basically, Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Act required a person to obtain a licence for production, sale and distribution of silkworm seed, for rearing silkworms from silkworm seed, for possession of silkworm seed, for disposal of silkworm cocoons for reeling or for reproduction, for sale or purchase of silkworm cocoons for reeling, and for carrying on the business of reeling silkworm cocoons. Section 10 enabled the government to specify the manner of marketing the above goods, the places at which cocoon markets, cocoon market yards and cocoon stores could be located, specify the sericultural areas to be served by each cocoon market, assign zones and markets i