The monopoly of NAFED in the matter of export of onions is not violative of Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution, as NAFED is a 'State' within the meaning of Art.12 and the word 'State' in Art.19(6)(ii) has no restricted connotation.

V. RAMASWAMI, J. :- W.P. No.3834 of 1981 has been filed by 17 petitioners who are exporters of onions, praying for writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction forbearing the second respondent National Agricultural Cooperative Federation of India Ltd., who are hereafter referred to for short as NAFED, "from proceeding with its decision to export 50,000 tonnes of onions to Malaysia and Singapore solely through itself and the third respondent completely excluding the petitioner."

2. The first respondent to this petition is the Union of India. The second respondent is NAFED and the 3rd respondent is another exporter of onions. Kin Guan Choong Sendirian Berhad, a company incorporated under the Malaysian laws and having its registered office at Penang, Malaysia has impleaded itself as a party respondent on the ground that they are importers in respect of the quantity of onions which is the subject matter in this writ petition.

3. The export of onions prior to 1974 was governed by what is known as Open General Licence but subject to quality control and Letters of credit being opened in firm contracts. On 16-11-1974, the Government of India decided to canalise

the export of onions to Singapore and Malaysia and accordingly published a notification in the Gazette Public Notice No.40-ET (PN)/74 dated 16-11-1974, which reads as follows-

"It has been decided to canalise with immediate effect export of onions to Singapore and Malaysia through National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd., Saba Buildings, East of Kailash, New Delhi."

The constitutional validity of this notification was questioned by one of the exporters of onions in W.P. No.4273 of 1974 on the ground that the proposed canalisation of export of onions through NAFED violated the petitioners' fundamental rights under Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution in that it absolutely prohibited them from carrying on their export business and conferred a monopoly on NAFED. It was also contended that the notification could not be considered to be a law within the meaning of Art.19(6) read with Art.13(1) of the Constitution and that the monopoly created under the executive instructions cannot also be considered to be in favour of a Corporation owned or controlled by the State within the meaning of Art.19(6) as NAFED is merely a Co-operative Society which cannot be brought within that provision. This court was not inclined to agree in that case that NAFED is either a Government owned or a Government controlled Corporation within the meaning of Art.19(6)(ii) and, therefore, went into the question whether the impugned notification canalising the export through NAFED was a reasonable restriction within the meaning of the first part of Art.19(6). After referring to the decided cases on the subject, it was held that canalising of exports through special or specialised agencies or channels is a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Art.19(6), that the dominant purpose in such cases is not to acquire the export business or the goodwill of the other dealers and that in selecting NAFED which is a Co-operative Society for the purpose of such canalisation, the Union of India was only followed its policy to encourage public and co-operative sectors. In that view, this court held that the canalisation order is a reasonable restriction imposed in public interest and, therefore, does not violate Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution. This judgement was delivered on 24-3-1975. It only needs to be mentioned at this stage that subsequently by notification dated 10-12-1975, the Government of India had notified that export of onions 'to all permissible destinations' shall be canalised through NAFED. It appears that subsequently there was a meeting of the onion exporters of Madras and Nagapattjnam with NAFED on the 16th April, 1975 in which they settled the procedure in connection with the export of onions to Singapore and Malaysia under the canalisation scheme of exports from the p