- (1.) THE petitioner who used to carry on business as handling agents of wheat products was aggrieved by the communication dated 25th april, 1973. The said communication was from the Deputy Director, District distribution Procurement and Supply addressed to different parties. The relevant portion of the said communication stated as follows: "from: The Deputy Director (D)District Distribution. Pro. and supply. To all District Controllers, F and S. Assistant District Controllers, F and S. Sub-Divisional Controllers, F and S. Sub: Procedure for lifting of wheat products. 1. I am directed to say that it has been the usual practice of the wheat product permit holders in the district to authorise some agents in Calcutta for the lifting of stock from the Flour Mills and to get the permits revalidated in the event of the expiry of their validity. Some of the Agents in collusion with the permit holders have been found to be actively enaged in smuggling wheat products out of this State and indulging in various other corrupt practices. The following Agents, found guilty on the above counts have been black listed and as such they should not be allowed to handle any permit of permit holders or lift stocks from Flour Mills henceforth the district nominees should therefore be advised accordingly. (1) M\s. Wheaten Products and (2) its sister organisation International Supply Company, (3) M\s. Uma Shankar Pradip Kumar. "
(2.) THE other portions of the directions contained in the said communication are not relevant. The petitioner's grievance is that by the aforesaid communication the petitioner's right to carry on trade has been interfered with and, therefore, there has been violation of the petitioner's right to carry on trade as guaranteed under article 19 (1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution. It was, further, contended that the order in question was illegal and arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. In this connection reliance was placed on several decisions. Counsel drew my attention to the decision in the case of Krishna Kumar Narula v. State of Jummu and Kashmir A. I. R. 1967 S. C. 1368. Reliance was also placed on the decisions in the case of Mohammed Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh A. I. R. 1969 (1) S. C. C. 853, State of Assam v. Tulsi singh (1962) (3) S. C. R. 508, State of madhya Pradesh v. Thakur Bharat singh A. I. R. 1967 S. C. 1170 and M. K. Mathula v. N. N. Wanchoo A. I. R. 1970 delhi 195. Counsel submitted that the order in question imposed unreasonable restriction on his right to carry on trade and business as mentioned before. I am unable to accept this contention. The petitioner has the right to carry on trade and business, that right to carry on trade is not interfered with. Wheat products being essential commodity, the distribution of the said commodities is controlled for the benefit of the community. Therefore regulation for the distribution of essential commodity in the manner indicated cannot, in my opinion, be construed to be interference with the right of the petitioner to carry on his trade or business.
(3.) THERE is, however, another aspect of the matter. I have noticed that in the impugned communication it has been stated that the petitioner was found to be engaged in smuggling in wheat products. In answer to the rule nisi issued in the case it has been stated in paragraph 9 of the affidavit as follows: "with reference to paragraph 11 of the said petition, I say that in course of inspection of certain bakery units in the district of 24 parganas it was detected that supply of flour made for such bakeries were being directed clandestinely into the black-market for making unlawful profit in an unauthorised manner at the cost of the consumers' interest. One such bakery unit was Kohinur Bakery Unit of bakrahat in 24-Parganas. It was detected that the said bakery was only in existence in its signboard and no production was made by the said bakery though permits were obtained and flour was drawn and lifted through the petitioner m/s. Wheaten Products on the basis of permits. Necessary action against the bakery has been taken in due manner depart mentally and the case was also referred to the enforcement Branch for further action in the matter according to law. It was also detected that the said non-existent bakery was lifting its quota of flour meant for the purpose of manufacturing bread was lifted through the petitioner. The said Wheaten Product was also found to have lifted flour against permit held by a closed bakery at Suri in June 1972. The said case is being pursued separately. It was therefore apparent that the petitioner Ms. Wheaten products has formed a league in collusion with unscrupulous traders and businessmen to divert essential commodities and indulged in corrupt and malpractices. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances a memorandum was issued by the Deputy Director by which the petitioner and some other handling agents have been prohibited from acting as agents of the permit holders from lifting stock from flour mills in public interest and in order to prevent the recurrence of such corrupt and malpractices. Save as aforesaid I deny all other allegations made in paragraph 11 of the said petition. ";