Judgment

CHINNAPPA REDDY

( 1 ) IN these petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India the petitioners seek to question the validity of the Rajasthan Wheat (Export Control) Order 1981 and that of a notification issued. under the Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order, 1980.

( 2 ) THE Rajasthan Wheat (Export Control) Order purports to prohibit the export of wheat from any place within the State of Rajasthan to any place outside the State except wider and in accordance with a permit issued by the State Government or any officer authorised by the State Government in that behalf. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the control order banned the export of wheat from a place within the State of Rajasthan to a place outside the State of Rajasthan and, therefore, it contravened the provisions of the Constitution which guaranteed freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India. According to the learned counsel it might be open to Parliament to make a law banning such export from one State to other States but it could not be done by the State Government in the exercise of a delegated power under the Essential Commodities Act. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in The Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, (1963) 1 SCR 491 : (AIR 1962 SC 1406 ). In any case it was argued that the Control Order was not authorised by the terms of the Essential Commodities Act. It was also submitted that there was an infringement of the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.

( 3 ) THE notification banning a dealer from possessing more than 200 quintals of wheat at any one time, issued under Cl. 18 of the Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order, 1980, was questioned on the ground that it infringed the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. It was also urged that the Officers of the State of Rajasthan were misinterpreting the notification and preventing the dealers from purchasing any wheat in the course of a day if at some point of time in the course of the day the dealer was in possession of 200 quintals though later in the day the quantity in his possession might have gone far below 200 quintals as a result of the transactions of the day.

( 4 ) WE do not find any substance in any of the submissions made before us except in regard to the interpretation of the notification fixing the maximum quantity of wheat permitted to be possessed by a dealer at any one time.

( 5 ) IN the first place it is not correct to say that the Rajasthan Wheat (Export Control) Order, 1981 imposes a total ban on export of wheat from the State of Rajasthan. What it does is to regulate the export of wheat by prohibiting it except under and in accordance with a permit issued by the State Government. We do not mean to say that regulation may not under certain circumstances include total ban having regard to the exigencies of production, demand and distribution. In the present case the aim and object of the Control Order is apparent. It is obviously to conserve the wheat produced in the State of Rajasthan for effective distribution to the people of the State who need them, at reasonable price and to prevent the sky-rocketing of the price of wheat within the State of Rajasthan. The restriction on the export of wheat from Rajasthan is clearly a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Art. 19 (6) of the Constitution and is required in the public interest as contemplated by Art. 302 of the Constitution. Under Art. 302 of the Constitution Parliament may by law impose such restriction on the freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse between one State and another or within any part of the territory of India as may be required in the public interest. The Essential Commodities Act which is an Act to provide, in the interests of the general public, for the control of production, supply and distribution o