The impugned action did not create a monopoly and did not violate the fundamental rights of the appellants. The cancellation of contracts was within the rights of the State Government.

1. The several appellants in these writ appeals are wholesale distributors of rationed articles appointed under Clause.51 of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 promulgated by the Government of Kerala under S.3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, in pursuance of the authorisation by the Central Government under S.5 thereof. The State Government added Clause.51A to the original Rationing Order in September 1967, which clause authorised the Government that, if at any time the Government were of the opinion that in the interest of the general public it was necessary or expedient so to do, the Government might, by general or special order, cancel the appointment of any or all or any class of authorised wholesale distributors after giving an opportunity to such distributor or distributors of being heard. And when the appointment of any wholesale distributor or distributors was cancelled, Clause.51A provided further, the stocks of rationed articles available - with him or them at the time of such cancellation should be disposed of in accordance with the directions of the Government. The Government issued show-cause notices to some of the wholesale distributors; and some of them who received such notices filed writ petitions before this Court questioning the validity and constitutionality of Clause.51A. A Division Bench of this court disposed of those matters ultimately by judgment reported in M/s Appukutty v. State of Kerala (1969 Lab. & Ind. Cases 30). The Division Bench upheld Clause.51A; and one of the learned judges, Raman Nayar J. (as he then was), indicated that two views were possible on the question whether the Government could, under the Rationing Order as it then stood, legally and validly transfer the wholesale distribution to the Food Corporation of India. Subsequently, those show-cause notices were dropped and the matter was not pursued further; and the State Government added Clause.51B to the Rationing Order providing that it would be open to the Government, if, in its opinion, it was necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of the general public, to enter into an agreement with the Food Corporation of India for the distribution and supply of rationed articles to retail dealers in the whole or any part or area of the State on such terms and conditions as might be agreed upon, etc. Clause.51B further provided that the Food Corporation would be subject to control by and supervision of the Government, and that nothing contained in Clause.51 would apply to the Food Corporation. After the promulgation of this clause, the Government issued show-cause notices under Clause.51A to the appellants, heard their representations and ultimately cancelled their appointments. And the Government also entered into an agreement with the Food Corporation of India as contemplated by Clause.51B. The appellants filed writ petitions questioning this action of the Government; and the writ petitions were dismissed in limine by a learned judge of this Court (Isaac J.). The appeals are against the said dismissals in limine of the writ petitions.

2. Mr. V. K. K. Menon, the counsel of the appellant in one of these appeals, argued the appeals in the main; and the counsel of the other appellants all adopted Mr. Menon's arguments and did not contribute anything more. Mr. Menon's arguments can be summarised as follows. What has been done by the State Government is in effect to create a monopoly in favour of the Food Corporation; that such creation of monopoly is beyond the scope of the Essential Commodities Act; that even if it is within the scope of the Act, it is beyond the scope of the delegation by the Central Government to the State Government under S.5 of the Act; that such creation of monopoly should only be by a statute and not by an executive order as the Rationing Order; and that the action of the State Government is violative of the fundamental right of the appellants under Art.19 (1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution and not