The court held that the Stock Order was violative of Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution of India because it was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights to hold and dispose of property and to carry on a profession or occupation. The court also found that the Stock Order was not necessary to ensure equitable distribution of wheat at fair prices and to prevent hoarding and profiteering.

S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. A multipronged attack against the validity and the constitutionality of the Punjab Wheat (Restriction of Stock by Producers) Order 1974 has been forcefully levelled in this writ petition. It arises from facts which are not in serious dispute but to which detailed reference is nevertheless necessary.

2. Partap Singh Kadian, petitioner, claims to be what may compendiously be termed as a progressive farmer of the State of Punjab. He is a Graduate in Agriculture and has adopted farming as his profession and carries on mechanical cultivation of an area of 27 acres of land situated in village Kadian, Tahsil and district Ludhiana. He has been a former member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly and is now the General Secretary of the Punjab Khetibari Zamindari Union which claims to have a membership of more than seventy-five thousand farmers. The writ petition is therefore, claimed to be more or less of a representative character on behalf of the producers.

3. The petitioner claims to have a complete know-how of the modern mechanized agriculture and has given full details of an investment of Rs. 97,500.00 regarding the machinery and other equipment necessary for the operations on his. farm. In para 4 of the petition further details regarding the expenditure for harvesting, hoeing, seeds, repair of machinery, fuel, fertilizers, rent of land, labour and management, depreciation and interest etc., are specified wherefrom originally a rather tall claim of the cost of the production of one quintal of wheat has been ultimately reduced to Rs. 300.00 per quintal (as stated in the replication). It is averred that if a meaningful survey or assessment of the current cost of production of wheat within this area were to be made by the Punjab Government then it would be more than manifest that a price of Rs. 139/- per quintal is ridiculously low and indeed ruinous to the producers. A strong apprehension is expressed that if this policy is pursued and continued then the cultivation and production of wheat within the State is likely to suffer a serious set back.

4. The admitted background of the impugned statutory order is that in early 1973 in pursuance of a policy decision the Central Government decided to take over completely the trading in wheat. To give effect to that policy this State promulgated the Punjab Wheat Dealers Licensing and Price Control Order on the 3rd of April, 1973. However, in the actual execution of that policy within the State of Punjab and also at the All India level serious difficulties were experienced and in certain areas a total failure of the procurement of wheat resulted therefrom. As a result thereof in the ensuing year, 1974, a reversal or substantial modification of the wheat trade take over was made by the Central Government and as a result of the larger policy decision the State of Punjab on the 18th of April, 1974, promulgated the Punjab Wheat Dealers Licensing and Price Control (First Amendment) Order, 1974, and simultaneously therewith the Wheat Procurement (Levy) Order, 1974, was also enforced. Thereby very substantial changes in the procurement policy were envisaged and in particular wholesale dealers in wheat were again brought back into the field of procurement primarily on the condition that 50 per cent of the wheat purchased by them would be surrendered to the State Government in the form of a levy at the rate of Rupees 105/- per quintal and the remaining 50 per cent would be allowed to be disposed of in the open market or by the issue of export permits from the State.

5. The Government of Punjab, however, in the six months that followed appears to have had second thoughts on the procurement policy and on the 22nd of October, 1974, the Punjab Wheat Dealers Licensing and Price Control (Fourth Amendment) Order, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Fourth Amendment Order), was promulgated whereby action in substantial reversal of the preceding policy was sought to be incorporated