An order issued under a law that has expired is invalid and cannot be used to justify interference with a person's fundamental rights.

This is an application for obtaining a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to show cause why the order dated 18-1-1955 should not be set aside and also for quashing the said order and for costs of and incidental to this application as against the respondents.

2. It appears that in the State of Manipur in Gazette Extraordinary No. 61-E-31 dated 24-11-1951, Notification No. DR/80/FCC/51 dated 20-10-1951 was published containing the Manipur Foodgrains (Movement) Control Order 1951 and in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 3, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 the Manipur Government ordered that no person should export or attempt to export any rice, paddy or products thereof from Manipur to any place outside Manipur except under and in accordance with the terms issued by the State Government in this behalf; vide para 3(a) of the Order.

The Central Government by notification No. Py-11-656(36)/54 dated 10th July 1954 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act 1946 substituted another order for the order which was published earlier vide Notification dated 20-10-1951 referred to above and by means of S. 3 of the new order it was laid down :

"As from the date of the commencement of this order there shall be no prohibition, restriction or control on the movement of rice from any place in a State to any other place within or outside that State nor shall there be any regulation or control in any manner whatsoever in relation to the production, price or distribution and price."

3. The ban imposed on the export of rice by the Extraordinary Gazette dated 24-11-1951 was thus discontinued, on the movement of rice and rice products from 10-7-1954.

4. The present petitioner purchased 35 maunds of rice at Rs. 7/4/- per maund and 45 maunds of chira (rice products) at Rs. 13 per maund at Imphal in February 1955 and in order to do some business and make some profits on 24-2-1955 boarded a lorry No. 488 MNS in Imphal the said 35 maunds of rice and 45 maunds of chira for taking them to Dimapur where rice was sold at Rs. 15/8/- per maund and chira was sold at Rs. 24/- per maund. The said motor lorry reached Kangpokpi at 3 P.M. on 24-2-1955 and respondent 2 under order of respondent 1 illegally stopped the petitioner from proceeding further than Kangpokpi and so the petitioner had to return back to Imphal thus suffering considerable financial loss in business.

According to the petitioner respondent 1 has been acting under the (repealed) notification of the Government of Manipur dated 20-10-1951 referred to above, and orders have been issued to respondent 2 to illegally ban the movement of rice and rice products from Manipur to places outside Manipur even though the said notification has legally been repealed by the latter Notification of the Central Government dated 10-7-1954 to which also reference has been made above earlier.

5. The petitioner has further alleged that the Government of Manipur have by means of the order dated 18-1-1955 No. CS/3/55 illegally violated the order of the Central Government dated 15-7-1954 (10-7-1954 ?) by banning export of rice from Manipur and thereby there has been an invasion on the fundamental rights conferred on the petitioner by Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. According to this provision of the Constitution all citizens of the Indian Union have the right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation or business.

The order of respondent 1 in stopping the petitioner to carry the goods mentioned above as a trader to Dimapur is neither judicial nor quasi-judicial order and there is no special or adequate legal remedy against him. The petitioner made a demand on the Manipur Government on 15-3-1955, by means of a registered notice to allow him to proceed to places outside Manipur with rice and rice products.

But the Government is alleged to have neglected to grant any relief on such demand so