- (1.) JUDGEMENT This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner makes the following prayers : (a) That a writ of certiorari may be issued to respondent no. 1 ordering it to produce the U. P. Foodgrains (Restrictions on Hoarding) Order, 1966 as amended by Notification dated February 1, 1967 and Notification no. 3528 XXIXD 63 - 1966 dated June 1, 1967 and the same may be quashed by this Honble Court. (b) To issue a writ of certiorari ordering the respondent no. 2 to produce a copy of the charges framed by him against the petitioner under Section 3/7, Essential Commodities Act, 1955 on May 25, 1967 and the same may be quashed by this Honble Court. (c) That a writ of prohibition may be issued to the respondent No. 2 forbidding it to continue the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955. (d) That a writ of mandamus may be issued to the respondent No. 2 commanding him to release the foodgrains seized from the petitioners firm and put in the custody of the Supurdgar, and (e) To issue such other appropriate writ, direction or order against such of the respondents as may be deemed expedient by this Honble Court.
(2.) THE petitioner is a partner in the firm known as Messrs. Ghanshyam Das Lachmi Narain which carries on wholesale business in grain at Katarniyaghat, district Bahraich. Said firm holds a licence in form B under the U. P. Food-grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964. Under the U. P. Foodgrains (Restrictions on Hoarding) Order, 1966 the petitioner could hold in stock up to one thousand quintals of one type of grain and further he could hold a total quantity of 2500 quintals of all types of grains Said Order was modified by the U. P. Food-grains (Restrictions on Hoarding) (Amendment) Order, 1967 which was published in the U. P. Gazette dated February 1-1967. According to the amended Order, the petitioner could hold a total quantity of 1000 quintals of foodgrains of all kinds and only 250 quintals of grain of any one particular type. The allegation in the petition is that the petitioner got knowledge of this amended Order only on 13th March, 1967 when the Senior Marketing Inspector, Nanpara circulated a notice of even date to that effect. A copy of that notice is filed as annexure 2 to the petition. Then it is alleged that the very next day, i. e. on 14th March, 1967 the petitioner addressed an application to the Regional Food Controller, Gorakhpur through the Marketing Inspector, Bichia, district Bahraich asking for permission to hold a stock of 1000 quintals of paddy and 500 quintals of maize till April 30, 1967 and that the said application was forwarded by the Marketing Inspector with a recommendation in favour of the request made therein. Another allegation made in the petition is that the Regional Food Controller Gorakhpur had granted a permit to the petitioner on 4th February, 1967 for exporting 3000 quintals of paddy from Katarniya Ghat to Khalilabad. A copy of that permit is filed as annexure 4 to the petition. It is said that the petitioner could despatch only 1116 quintals of paddy up to 27th February, 1967 in pursuance of that permit and failed to despatch the rest because of the nonavailability of railway wagons for which he had already applied. Then a reference is made to Government letter no. 7210/ XXIX d-466/64 dated December 11, 1964 which inter alia stated: "If there is any grain with any dealer beyond 250 quintals for which Railway wagon has been indented, it should not be taken into account while taking action under the Anti-Hoarding Order. This should be treated as grain under despatch." The petitioner then alleged that in so far as on February 26, 1967 he applied for one wagon for the despatch of paddy and another for despatch of maize and on March, 6, 1967 for two wagons for despatch of maize for which he had obtained receipts nos. 073265, 073266 and 073283 but the aforesaid wagons could not arrive till March 15, 1967 on which date respondent no. 3 made a raid and finding grain in stock with the petitioner more than permissible under the amended Order seized the same, he can by no means be taken to have contravened the amended Order in view of the instructions contained in the aforesaid Government letter a true copy of which is filed as annexure 5 to the petition.
(3.) AS a result of the report lodged by respondent no. 3 at police station Sujauli on March 15, 1967, the petitioner is being prosecuted before respondent no. 2 under Section 3/7, Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioner challenges the validity of this prosecution firstly on the ground that in view of the facts stated above, the petitioner cannot be taken to have contravened the amended Order and secondly on the ground that the amended order being in excess of the power conferred by Sections 3 and 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with the notification issued under Section 5 of the Act by the Central Government and also being in contravention of Article 301 of the Constitution is void, inoperative and ultra vires.;