JUDGMENT

N. P. SINGH, J.:—These Appeals have been filed on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu, for setting aside the judgment of the High Court, holding that the amendment introduced by notification dated 22nd September, 1983 in clause 3 of the Tamil Nadu Timber (Movement Control) Order, 1982, was violative of Art. 19(l)(g) and Article 301 of the Constitution and as such unconstitutional and invalid.

2. The Tamil Nadu Timber (Movement Control) Order, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as Movement Control Order) was notified in exercise of the power conferred by S. 3 of the Tamil Nadu Essential Articles Control and Requisitioning Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Act aforesaid was originally entitled "Madras Essential Articles Control and Requisitioning (Temporary Powers) Act, 1949 ".The preamble of the Act says that it was to provide "powers to control the supply, distribution, transport and prices of essential articles and trade and commerce therein Section 2(a) defines "essential article" to mean any of the articles specified in the schedule to the said Act and "any other article which may be declared by the State Government by notified order to be an essential article". Under S. 3 the State Government for "maintaining, increasing or securing supplies of essential articles or for arranging for their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices may by notified order provide for regulating or prohibiting the supply, distribution and transport of essential articles and trade and commerce therein". From time to time the life of the said Act was being extended. It came to an end on 25-1-1956. In April, 1956 Tamil Nadu Act VI of 1956 was passed to re-enact the Madras Essential Articles Control and Requisitioning (Temporary Powers) Act, 1949. Ultimately by Tamil Nadu Act X of 1979, the Act was made permanent and the words "Temporary Powers" in the title of the Act were deleted. It appears that before the High Court it was an admitted position that the Act shall be deemed to be a post-Constitution Act in view of the enactment aforesaid. That position was not challenged even before this Court. However, it was pointed out on behalf of the appellant-State that the Act was made a permanent Act, by Tamil Nadu Act X of 1979, which had been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent.

3. By a notification dated 2nd November, 1982 issued in exercise of powers conferred by clause (a) of S. 2 of the Act, timber was declared to be an essential article. In view of notification of the same date issued in exercise of powers under S. 3 of that very Act, the aforesaid Movement Control Order came in force. Clause 2 of the Movement Control Order defines "timber" saying, unless the context otherwise requires, "timber" includes trees when they have fallen or have been felled, and all wood, whether cut up or fashioned or hollowed out for any purpose or not. Clause 3 of the said Order prescribed the condition for transport of timber -

"Prohibition of transport of timber:- No person shall transport, move or otherwise carry or prepare or attempt to transport, move or otherwise carry, or and or abet in the transport, movement or otherwise carrying of timber from any place within the State of Tamil Nadu to any place outside the State except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a permit issued under the Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules, 1968."

(Emphasis added)

In view of clause 3 aforesaid no person was entitled to transport timber from any place within the State of Tamil Nadu to any place outside the State except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a permit issued under the Tamil Nadu Timber Transit Rules.

4. By the impugned notification dated 22nd September, 1983, the expressions "except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a permit issued under the Tamil Nadu Timber Rules, 1968" were omitted. The effect of the amendment is that clause 3 of Movement C