The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Travancore-Cochin Vegetable Oils & Oilcakes (Forward Contract Prohibition) Order, 1950 was void and inoperative due to lack of Presidential sanction under the proviso to Art.304 (b) of the Constitution.

1. The defendant in O. S.12 of 1958 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cochin is the appellant. The suit was for recovery of damages for breach of contract in respect of goods purchased and not taken

delivery of by the defendant.

2. The plaintiff's firm is doing business in Mattancherry in coconut oil both as merchants and commission agents. The defendant is a trader at Coondapoor, South Canara District. He is doing business in coconut oil through commission agents in Mattancherry. The terms of the agreement on the strength of which the plaintiff was transacting business with his customers like the defendant are set out in the plaint. The plaintiff alleged that all oil transactions entered into by commission agents at Mattancherry are governed by the trade usage known as Pakka Aadat system and the defendant was dealing with them under this system with the full knowledge of its incidents.

3. In the course of such dealings the defendant placed three orders, one for the purchase of 100 candies of coconut oil for one month's vaida (period) if the market rate was below Rs. 460/-; the second for the purchase of another 100 candies if the market rate was below Rs. 450/- and a third order was for the purchase of another 100 candies if the market rate was below Rs. 435/-. The plaintiff firm duly complied with the said orders and intimated the defendant by telegram and confirmed by letters that 100 candies of coconut oil has been purchased on 14 21952 at Rs. 455/- per candi; another 100 candies on 16 21952 at Rs. 447 8 0 and the last 100 candies at Rs. 432-8-0 which were the ruling market rates on the said dates. The period fixed were one month and due dates for the performance of the said contracts were 15th, 17th and 19th of March 1952 respectively. On the due dates the defendant did not take delivery. The closing market rates on the due dates were Rs. 330/-, Rs. 335/- and Rs. 352 8 0 respectively. The plaintiff has, therefore, claimed the difference in the two prices by way of damages. The usual commission and brokerage were also claimed.

4. The suit was resisted by the defendant on several grounds. He denied the existence of the trade usage known as the Pakka Aadat system and stated that the plaintiff was only an agent and the three orders referred to in the plaint were intended only as wagering contracts without an understanding to take or give delivery. It was contended that the plaintiff's firm was not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract while the defendant was always willing to take delivery. Finally it was contended that in any view the contracts were void and unenforcible since they fell within the prohibition contained in the Travancore-Cochin Vegetable Oils & Oilcakes (Forward Contract Prohibition) Order, 1950.

5. The learned Subordinate Judge on a consideration of the evidence found that the custom of trade set up by the plaintiff is true, that the transactions were not wagering contracts, that the defendant had committed breach of contract and found that the claim made by the plaintiff was reasonable. On the question of legality of the contract it was found that the Vegetable Oils & Oilcakes (Forward Contract Prohibition) Order promulgated under S.3 of the Travancore-Cochin Public Safety Measures Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Act V of 1950) was void and decreed the suit for Rs. 18,750/- with interest and costs. The only point that was pressed in this appeal is about the correctness of the decision regarding the validity of the Travancore-Cochin Vegetable Oils and Oilcakes Order.

6. There is no dispute that at the time Act V of 1950 came into force there was prohibition against entering into forward contracts in coconut oil both under the Cochin law and later by the Travancore-Cochin law. In exercise of the powers conferred by S.3 of the Cochin Essential Articles (Control and Requisitioning) Powers Act Act VIII of 1122 as continued in force by the Travancore-Cochin Administration and App