( 1 ) ON being convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for contravening rule 3 of the U. P. Paddy (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the order) by a Magistrate, the petitioners appealed before the learned Sessions Judge, Varanasi but their appeal was dismissed on 14th of April, 1961 by Sri P. S. Varma, II Temporary Civil and sessions Judge, Varanasi. Thereafter the present revision application was filed in this Court under Section 439 Cri. P. C. The matter came up before our brother Broome. The submission that was made before him on behalf of the petitioners was that the provisions of the Order and specially those of Clause 3 are ultra vires. On behalf of the State reliance was placed upon State of U. P. v. Ram Charan, 1962 all LJ 13 : (AIR 1962 All 359) where a Division Bench of this Court had held the provisions of the U. P. Wheat (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1949 to be intra vires. Broome; J. was of the opinion that there was a suggestion in 1962 All LJ 13 : (AIR 1962 All 359) (supra) that the matter requires further consideration. He also considered the instant case to be, to some extent, distinguishable, from 1962 All LJ 13 : (AIR 1962 All 359 ). He, therefore, directed the record of this case to be placed before the Honble the Chief Justice so that there may be directions for the listing of the case before a larger Bench. This is how the case has come up before us.

( 2 ) MR. C. S. Saran, who has appeared for the petitioners, has not made any submissions on the merits of the case but has confined his arguments only to the question regarding the vires of clause 3 of the Order. He has contended that the provisions of that clause are hit by Articles 301 to 304 of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution ). One of the grounds taken in the revision application was that the provisions of Clause 3 of the Order are hit by Article 14 of the Constitution but that ground has now been withdrawn and no submission has been made in respect of it.

( 3 ) THE only question that has, therefore, to engage our attention is whether in view of the provisions of Articles 301 to 304 of the Constitution, the provisions of Clause 3 of the Order are ultra vires. This Order was framed by the Central Government purporting to exercise powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and was published in the U. P. Gazette Extraordinary, Part II, dated the 24th of December, 1958. Clause 3 of the Order reads as follows :

"no person shall move or attempt to move or abet the movement of paddy from any place in any of the districts specified in the Schedule to this Order to any place outside the said districts, except under and in accordance with a permit issued by the State Government or any officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf: provided that nothing contained herein shall apply to the movement of paddy,-- (i) not exceeding five seers in weight by a bona fide traveller as part of his luggage; or (ii) on Government account; or (iii) under and in accordance with Military Credit Notes. "

( 4 ) THE argument addressed on behalf of the petitioners is that Article 301 of the Constitution guarantees free trade throughout the territory of India subject only to the other provisions in Part xiii. That Article reads as follows :

"subject to the other provisions of this Part, trade, commerce and intercoure throughout the territory of India shall be free. "

Article 303 of the Constitution prescribes the restrictions on the legislative powers of the Union and the States with regard to trade and commerce and Article 304 prescribes restrictions on trade, commerce and intercourse amongst the various States in India. Article 302, however, confers on Parliament the power to impose restrictions on trade, commerce and intercourse and reads as follows :"parliament may by law impose such restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce or i