TEKNARAYAN MAHESH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these eleven writ cases is involved the question of the constitutional validity of the Bihar Rice and Paddy Procurement Order, 1970 (hereinafter called the Procurement Order) and, therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. Counter-affidavits and affidavits in reply could not be filed in all the cases but when some of them came up before us for making an interim order of stay, it was agreed on behalf of the petitioners as also the State that the counter-affidavits and affidavits in reply filed in some would be used in all. There was no difficulty in adopting this course as there are not many questions of fact or any special fact involved in any of them.

(2.) On the 30th of October, 1970 the Governor of Bihar was pleased to make the Procurement Order which came into force with effect from the 1st November, 1970. The preamble states that the Governor of Bihar being of the opinion that it is necessary and expedient to make the Order for maintaining the supplies of rice and for securing its equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, has made it in exercise of the powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Central Act X of 1955), hereinafter called the Act, read with certain notifications of the Government of India, Ministry of Food, Agriculture, Community Development and Co-operation with the prior concurrence of the Central Government. In Sub-clauses (b) and (c) of Clause 2 of the Procurement Order are defined licensed wholesale dealer' to mean "a person holding a valid licence as a wholesale dealer under the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1967" and a licensed miller* to mean "the owner or other person in charge of a rice mill holding a valid licence under the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958". I shall do better to quote the whole of Clause 3 of the Procurement Order with all its sub-clauses and provisos, as I shall have to often refer to them for deciding the points at issue-

(3.) It would be advantageous in the beginning to refer to the relevant provisions of Section 3 of the Act, under which the Procurement Order has been made. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 in terms only empowers the Central Government to make an order to provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution of any essential commodity, and trade and commerce therein. Without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by Sub-section (1), Sub-section (2) enumerates the matters which may be pro- vided for in an order made under subsection (1), Clause (f) of which is-