R. A. Sharma, J.

1. Petitioners are dealers, engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of food grains. Sale, purchase and storage are regulated by Control Order known as U. P. Foodgrains (Procurement and Regulation of Trade) Order, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as Control Order), issued by Government of U. P. under the Essential Commodities Act. Clause 4 of the Control Order which specify limits of stock which dealer can keep was amended by its ninth amendment of 1989 known as U. P. Foodgrains (Procurement and Regulation of Trade (Ninth Amendment) Order 1989. By this amendment the limit of stock was reduced to 150 quintals. Amended Clause 4 is reproduced below ;

"4. (1) No retail, wholesaler, commission agent or manufacturer shall at a time have in his stock foodgrains in excess of the limits specified below : (One) Wheat- (a) Retail 50 quintals (b) Wholesaler 150 quintals (c) Commission agent 150 quintals (d) Manufacturer A quantity corresponding to the 7 days manufacturing capacity. (Two) Other foodgrains as specified in Clause 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Foodgrains Dealers (Licensing and Registration on Hoarding) Order, 1976 from time to time. (2) No retailer, wholesaler, commission agent shall purchase, sell or store for sale wheat each day in quantities exceeding the limits specified in subclause (1) for each of them. (3) No wholesaler, commission agent and manufacturer, shall despatch his wheat or from any place other than the place of his business except in special circumstances and with the prior permission of the controller. (4) Above stock limit shall not be applicable for such stock of wheat which is purchased by the commission agent under the price support scheme for any purchasing agency appointed as such by the State Government. Explanation :-Quantities of wheat meant for despatch to outside the place of his business by wholesaler, commission agent kept at the premises, of a transport/forwarding agency or at a railway station shall be deemed to be included in his stock limit for so long as that quantity of wheat is not loaded for the place of destination in a truck or any other mode of transport or railway wagon."

Petitioners have, by means of, this writ petition challenged the validity of the aforesaid Clause 4.

2. The Government has filed a counter-affidavit and petitioners have filed rejoinder-affidavit in reply thereto. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing counsel. The writ petition is being disposed in accordance with Rules of the Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the newly added clause 4 of the Control Order on the ground that it is violative of Articles 19 (1) (g) and 14 of the Constitution of India.

3. Control Order has been issued under the Essential Commodities Act and is an anti hoarding measure so as to prevent speculative business and black marketing in foodgrains. Stock limit of foodgrains, which a dealer can have is fixed for checking the hoarding so as to ensure availability of food- grains for equitable distribution at a fair price, and such a measure is essential in public interest and cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable restriction on fundamental right to carry on business. In M/s. Krishna Lal Praveen Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1982 SC 29, the Supreme Court upheld the provision of identical Control Order issued by the Government of Rajasthan, fixing limit of stock at 200 quintals and plea of Article 19 was rejected. Relevant passage from this judgment is quoted below : "The notification providing for the maximum quantity of wheat which may be possessed by any dealer at any one time is clearly designed to prevent hoarding of foodgrains and is certainly a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Article 19 (6) of the Constitution." To the same effect is the decision of Supreme Court in another case from Rajasthan of Surajmal Kailash Chandra v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 130. These decisions were