Wanchoo, C.J.—This is an application by Nathmal and Mithalal under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction order, or writ in the nature of mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them to be issued against the State of Rajasthan and certain officers of the State, who have been made parties to the application.

2. The facts, which have led to this application, are these. The petitioners are merchants at Raniwara, and deal in food-grains for which they held licence. On the 7th of October, 1950, the petitioners were informed by the sub-Divisional Officer, Bhinmal, that their stocks of bajra were frozen by him under orders of the Deputy Commissioner,Civil Supplies, Jodhpur. Later, they were informed by the Tehsildar of Jaswantpura that their stocks of bajra were requisitioned by the Government, and they were ordered to sell it at the rate of Rs. 9/-per mound. The petitioners made various representation to the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner, Civil Supplies, and the Honble Minister for Supplies, but with ho effect. Their contention is that bajra is being allowed to be freely purchased and sold in the market, and no ceiling prices have been fixed by the Government. The stock of bajra with the petitioners was purchased by them at prevailing market rates, namely, about Rs. 17/- to 18/- per mound, and was held by them in the usual course of business. No reasons had been assigned why the stocks of the petitioners had been frozen and requisitioned at procurement rate and no principle had been laid down in the Rajasthan Food-grains Control Order, 1949, for freezing and requisitioning of the stock of Food-grain with any dealer. Further, it was said that stock of certain other grain merchants had also been frozen, but all that stock had been released. The Civil Supplies authorities had no authority to freeze and requisition the stock of bajra with the petitioners arbitrarily without assigning any reason, and, in any case, if they had any such discretion it had been highly abused so as to discriminate between one person and another. The action taken under Food-grains Control Order was void, in view of Art. 14, 19 (f), 19 (g), and 31 of the Constitution read with Art. 13.

3. The application was opposed by the State of Rajasthan. It was urged that separate orders were passed against Nathmal and Mithalal, and as such, a single petition was not maintainable. It was also urged that the application had not been filed on behalf of the respective firms, and that the affidavit had been verified by one of the applicants, vis., Nathmal, and not by the other, Mithalal. Further, the order freezing and requisitioning the stock of Bajra was justified under clause 25 of the Rajasthan Food-grains Control order, 1949, and the payment of Rs. 9/- per mound was justified under clause 4 of the Rajasthan Food-grains (kharif) Procurement Order, 1949. The circumstances in which the bajra was freezed were that the applicants had applied for permits to export this bajra outside the district of jalore. The matter was referred to the Commissioner, Civil Supplies, for instructions, as a large quantity of bajra was intended to be sent out of the district. Thereupon the Government of Rajasthan orderd that the stock of bajra of all merchants who applied for exports should be freezed. The power was exercised under clause 25 of the Rajasthan Food-grain-Control Order in order to prevent the creation of an unwarranted scarcity in Jalore. Compensation had been paid for the bajra that had been requisitioned, and, therefore, the applicants had no case.

4. The main attack of the application is on clause 25 of the Food-grains Control Order. That clause reads as follows:—

Notwithstanding anything contained in this order, the Commissioner, the Director, the Deputy Commissioner, the Nazim, the Assistant Commissioner, the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Senior Officer of a jurisdictional Thikana the enforcement Officer or such other officer as may be autho

Click Here to Read the rest of this document