SURAJMAL ROOPCHAND AND CO Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application filed by Messrs. Surajmal Roopchand under Article 226 of the Constitution of India through one of its partners Ram Gopal arises out of the following circumstances:

(2.) THE Petitioner is a partnership firm with five persons, namely, Ghasilal, mannalal, Roopchand, Surajmal and Ram Gopal as its partners, and it carries on its business at Kota and deals in the purchase and sale of grain. On 19-6-1964 it despatched 91 bags of Jawar and 59 bags of maze from Kota Junction rail way station for Amalsar and Dehad stations respectively in the State of Gujarat. It is alleged that the said booking of the grain was done in the normal course of business, and it was after receiving proper receipts from the railway officials that the goods were handed over to the Western Railway authorities at Kota Junction. On 18th June, 1964. the District Magistrate. Kota, purporting to act under the authority conferred on him by Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules), issued an order prohibiting the movement or the transportation of barley, gram, jawar, maze, bajra. rice, paddy or any products of any of these foodgrains by rail, road or water or in any other manner from any place in the district of Kota to any place outside Rajasthan. This order in the form of a notification was published in the Rajasthan Gazette, part IV (ga) of 25th June. 1964. It is averred that none of the partners of the petitioner firm received the information about the issue of the said notification (Ex. 2) upto 20-6-1964 and they despatched the goods without knowing that a ban was imposed on the movement of jawar and maze by the said order. On the same day, that is, on 18-6-1964 the District Magistrate issued another order Ex. 2 authorising all the Magistrates posted at Kota, and the District Supply Officer and the Assistant Supply Officer of Kota to exercise all the powers enumerated in para 2 of the notification Ex. 2, and it was in the exercise of the powers under this order (Ex. 2) that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kola went to the railway station and seized the goods of the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police (respondent no. 3) through his subordinate Circle Inspector (respondent No. 6) got three partners of the firm viz. Ghasilal, Mannalal and Roopchand arrested for deliberately violating the order of the District Magistrate and the other two partners Ram Gopal and Suraj Mal, who were not at Kota on the day the mass arrests of the grain merchants at Kota had taken place, escaped that arrest, but they apprehended that they may also be humiliated like other grain merchants any day by arresting them. It is also alleged that on 23-6-1964, the District Supply Officer served the petitioner firm with a notice to show cause within three days from 24-6-1964 (copy of the notice is Ex. 4) as to why its security deposit may not be for foited and its licence for dealing in food-grains be got cancelled for contravening the order of the District Magistrate dated 18-6-1964. It is also averred that the said order dated 18-6-1964 was revoked by the District Magistrate, Kota on 6-7-1964 but in spite of its withdrawal respondents are bent upon arresting the two partners of the firm and humiliating them like other 85 grain merchants who were denied bails by the City Magistrate even when some of the merchants were released on bail by the Sessions Judge. Kota on 6-7-1964.

(3.) THE petitioner by means of this application has challenged the legality of the order Ex. 2 on the ground that it violates the guarantee of free trade embodied in articles 301 302 and 303 of the Constitution of India as it purports to restrict the movement of the grain beyond the territories of the State of Rajasthan, that such a restriction is not in public interest, that the restriction is imposed by the District magistrate without obtaining previous sanction of the President, that the State government or its delegate has no power to make laws in respect of inter-State trade or commerce as the jurisdiction to pass such an order is exclusively with the centre and that under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 it is only the Central Government which is authorised to make an order for regulating, by means of licence, permits or otherwise for the storage, transport, distribution, disposal, acquisition, use and consumption of any essential commodity which includes foodgrains, and that under the Defence of India Act or the Rules made thereunder, the State Government or its delegate is not authorised to make any order prohibiting the movement of any essential commodity from one State to another. The order is also impugned by the petitioner on the ground that it was imperative under Rule 141 of the Rules for the District Magistrate to lay down his decision about the mode of publication of the impugned order, but respondent No. 2, the district Magistrate, did not specify the mode of publication of the order and that in the absence of such an expression the order shall be deemed to have come into force when it was published in the Rajasthan Gazette of 25-6-1964. For these reasons, it is prayed that the impugned order (Ex. 2) of 18th June. 1964 may be declared ultra vires of the powers of the District Magistrate, Kota, and a writ of prohibition may be issued to the respondents directing them not to arrest its partners Ram Gopal and Suraj Mal and prosecute them for the alleged violation of the impugned order. It is also prayed that the goods seized by the respondents on 21-6-1964 may be released, and by issuing a writ of mandamus they may be directed to return the seized goods to the petitioner firm, and the District Supply officer. Kota may be restrained from cancelling the licence of the firm issued to it under the Rajasthan Food Grains Dealers Licensing Order and from forfeiting its security amount. It is also prayed that a writ in the nature of habeas corpus be issued to the respondents to withdraw the prosecution against Ghasilal. Mannalal roopchand. Ram Gopal and Suraimal partners of the firm.