The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public, the need for intelligible differentia for imposing classifications, and the significance of scientific research and consultation in policy decisions.

Judgment :

1. The present challenge has been directed against an order dated September 13, 2019 passed by the respondent no.3, the Tea Board, issuing a directive under clause 13(3) of the Tea (Marketing) Control Order, 2003, inter alia, fixing the last date for plucking/receiving of green leaves for all tea factories as December 14, 2019 and fixing subsequent time lines for the other parts of processing of the tea. The petitioner is aggrieved by the directive fixing the last date of plucking/receiving of green leaves to be December 14, 2019.

2. It is argued by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the tea garden of the petitioner is situated in the Terai region on the foothills of the Himalayas and the onset of monsoons and winter in such area is different from that of the hilly areas of northern and north-eastern India. As such, it is argued that, in view of a similar directive having been issued last year, the petitioner faced substantial losses. After the aforesaid predicament, the present impugned order dated September 13, 2019 was again issued, which the petitioner is facing difficulty in implementing, in view of the impending huge loss to be suffered by the petitioner if the last date of plucking/receiving of green leaves remains as December 14, 2019. It is submitted that at least twenty days more for the plucking of tea leaves ought to be granted to tea gardens of the Terai region, due to late onset of winter as compared to the hilly areas.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance on a communication dated September 30, 2019 to the Deputy Chairman, Tea Board and Registering Authority, being the present respondent no.5, indicated such problems being faced by the petitioner, also clearly mentioning the reason for such difficulty, as indicated above.

4. However, the respondent no.2 wrote back to the petitioner vide a communication dated October 22, 2019, thereby relying on the differences in topography and climatic condition of tree growing areas between north and north-eastern India as opposed to southern India.

5. It is argued by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the said communication did not take into consideration at all the typical distinctive topographies and climatic conditions of the Terai region, as opposed to the hilly areas of northern India, thereby missing out the issue raised by the petitioner altogether and clubbing the entire tea gardens of northern India, including the hilly areas as well as the Terai region, in the same bracket. This, it is argued, is unscientific and would create huge loss of revenue not only to the petitioner but to the country as a whole.

6. It is pointed out by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a distinguished producer of tea and several documents in that regard, showing that the petitioner has earned distinction from various levels for its manufacture of tea from the Government of India, have been annexed to the present writ petition which would show that the petitioner has integrity in the tea market and occupies a huge portion of the tea market.

7. Learned senior counsel argues that Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution guarantees that all citizens of India shall have the right to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

8. It is argued that Article 19(6) of the Constitution specifically provides that nothing in sub-clause (g) of clause 1 of the said Article shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevents the State from making any law imposing, in the interest of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and in particular, nothing in the said sub-clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to or prevent the State from making any law relating to the exceptions as provided therein.

9. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that Article 19(6) specifically provides that the State m