POKAR CHAND JEEVRAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in these writ petitions are wholesale dealers in wheat. The State Government with the prior concurrence of the Central Government, issued Notification Ex. I dated 23 -5 -1931 in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub -clause (ii) of Cause 18 of the Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing and Central) Order, 1930 (here in after referred to as 'the 1980 Order') fixing the maximum limit of 200 quintals of wheat to be possessed by a dealer at any one time. The notification came into force with effect from 27th May, 1981. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the aforesaid notification of the State Government inter -alia on the ground that the time given for reducing the stock of wheat upto 200 quintals by 26th of May, 1981, was highly unjust, unreasonable and insufficient. The petitioners' case is that inspite of best of efforts on their part, it was not possible for them to dispose of their existing stocks within the time given to the petitioners under the said notification. According to Messrs. Pokorchand Jeevraj (S.B. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 892/81) the petitioner came to know of the aforesaid notification when it was published in the 'Rajasthan Patrika' on 25 -5 -1981 and some of the other petitioners in their respective writ petitions, have likewise averred. In Writ Petition No. 968/81 to 976/81 and No, 984/81 the petitioners have also averred that the market was closed on 24 -5 -1981, as it was Sunday and they have further averred that during those days, the Railway loading was closed. These petitioners are from Ganganagar District, which is essentially a wheat producing area. The petitioner Messrs. Pokarchand Jeevraj in its writ petition averred that for the last 2 -3 months it was having a daily stock of 5,000 to 7,000 quintals of wheat. In these months his daily average sale was 300 to 400 quintals wheat. It used to send wheat for sale outside Jodhpur and used to sell wheat to dealers locally. Thus, the case of all the petitioners is that inspite of all possible efforts it was not possible for the petitioners to bring down their stocks to the maximum limit fixed by the aforesaid notification. The petitioners have alleged that having regard to the time given under the notification, the notification has placed unreasonable and unjust restriction on the petitioners' right to trade and the notification is essentially confiscatory in the nature, if viewed in the light of the time provided to the dealers. The petitioners have prayed that the notification being violative of the petitioners' right to trade, may be struck down being unconstitutional.

(2.) RETURNS to the writ petitions have been filed by the respondents, in which it was averred that by publishing the notification in the Gazette as well as by radio broadcasting on 23 -5 -1981 in the evening, it was made publicly known The respondents refuted the grounds on which challenge to the validity of the notification has been made by the petitioners and it was averred that the petitioners have not shown as to what efforts were made by them to dispose of their stocks and further the petitioners have not shown as to what has been their in -take and out -delivery of wheat between the period from 23 -5 -1981 to 26 -5 -1981. According to the respondents, time given to the dealers, was sufficient and the notification is perfectly valid and reasonable.

(3.) THE principal challenge to the notification on behalf of the petitioners is that the time given in the notification is most insufficient arid unreasonable, in which it was not possible for the dealers to reduce their stocks to the maximum limit despite best efforts on their part, so on this ground the notification is violative of the petitioner's right to trade. The learned Counsel for the petitioners supported their contention by placing reliance on a decision of tins Court in Gordhan Lal Ramgopal and 31 Ors. v. State and Ors. 1975 W.L.N. 821, in which reference has been made to a decision of the Supreme Court in Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd., etc. v. Union of India and Ors. : AIR1970SC1070 . The learned Counsel for the petitioners also referred to Clause 12 of the 1980 Order, which provides that when a licence under this Order is cancelled or suspended, the stocks of trade articles available with the dealer at the time of such cancellation or suspension, shall be disposed of by him within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order of cancellation or suspension. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that under Clause 12 when the licence is suspended or cancelled, the dealer is given 15 days time to dispose of his available stocks. If the notification is viewed even in the light of Clause 12, the time allowed to the dealers under the impugned notification clearly appears to be insufficient and unreasonable.