KAN SINGH, J.—We have before us two writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution which raise a common question of law and can therefore be conveniently disposed of together. The petitioners, who are grain dealers, seek to challenge the vires of the Rajasthan Gram and Barley (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1964 here-in-after to be referred as the Control Order.

2. As the writ petitions do not raise any dispute on the facts we may only give the facts of Writ Petition No. 1678 of 1964. The petitioner is a partnership firm and carries on business of a wholesale grain dealer at Merta City and has a licence under and in accordance with the Rajasthan Food Grains Licensing Order, 1964. Some time in August, 1964 the petitioner booked three wagons of gram to different destinations in the State of Madras. The Tehsildar, Merta City having come to know of these despatches checked the stock register, the existing stocks, and other books of the petitioner on or about 12-9-64 and as a result of the checking thought fit to seize the registers and books of account. The Tehsildar then lodged information about these consignments with the Station House Officer, Merta City requesting him to take legal steps against the petitioner for the infringement of the Control Order as it amounted to an offence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 hereinafter to be referred as the Act. The Station House Officer then took up the investigations against the petitioner.

3. The petitioner contends that the Control Order being ultra vires of the powers of the State Government was null and void and he cannot be prosecuted for the breach thereof. In the first place it is pointed out that the Control Order purports to have been issued by the State Government in pursuance of the powers delegated to it by the Central Government by a Notification issued under sec.5 of the Act which was GSR/888 dated 28-6-61 and it is urged that this notification does not bear underneath it the name of the authority publishing it. Then it is urged that the notification does not authorise the State Government to issue any order under sub-sec. (2)(g) of sec. 3 of the Act which, according to him, is the relevant clause applicable to the subject matter of the Control Order. Besides the above contentions it was also urged that the Control Order affects the inter-state trade by putting restrictions on it, and this the State Government could not have done. It is pointed out that the restrictions on inter-state trade could not be imposed without making a proper law in accordance with sec. 304 of the Constitution, after obtaining the previous sanction of the President. As regards the Act it is pointed out that the Parliament has passed it in exercise of its legislative power under Item 33 of the concurrent list and not under Item 42 of the Union List which deals with inter State trade. Lastly it is contended that the Control Order results in discrimination between a State and a State and as such a law cannot be passed without the Parliament declaring that there was scarcity in any area.

4. The writ petition has been opposed by the State of Rajasthan. Countering the submissions made in the writ petition it is submitted that the writ petition, is premature as the matter was yet at the stage of investigation. Denying that the Control Order is ultra vires as asserted by the petitioners it is pointed out that it has been issued by the State Government in exercise of the power delegated to it by the Central Government under clause (d) of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 3 of the Act. As regards the mode of authentication it is submitted that when the same officer has to authenticate more than ore order to be published at the same time the signature is printed only at one place underneath the several orders. It is, therefore, urged that the notification G. S. R/888 dated 28-6-61 has been properly authenticated by the Deputy Secretary to the Government. It is denied that the Control Order introduces any dis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document