SINGHAL, J. - (1.) - This order will dispose of all the writ petitions mentioned in Schedule 'a' as all of them raise identical questions for determination by this court.
(2.) THE Government of Rajasthan has issued a notification on May 16,1994 by which restriction was imposed on the whole-sale dealers of 'gur' to maintain the maximum quantity of stock of 250 quintals with further direction that the said stock has to be disposed of within 20 days from the date of its receipt. THE approval of the Central Government was also obtained. THE petitioners are licence-holders under the Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order 1980 (hereinafter called as the Order of 1980) and are dealers within the definition of clause (c) of Order of 1980. THE statement with regard to opening stock, purchases, sales and closing stocks is being sent to the District Supply Officer. It is submitted that the commodity 'gur' is not produced in the State of Rajasthan and is mainly produced in the States of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar from November to February every year. THE various qualities of Gur i. e. Pansara, Chorsha, Khurpa, Paddi, Laddu,balti, Musti, Chaku and Gindora, are sold in various mandis in the State of Rajasthan and used for human consumption. Similarly, Gur of Raskat, Bald, and Pansara is mainly used for animal consumption. THE traders are having normal capacity of 100 quintals. By notification dated May 16,1994 which has become effective after 15 days of its publication in the official gazette,restrictions have been placed with regard to stock limit and the period during which it has to be disposed of. THE grievance of the petitioner is with regard to not providing any opportunity before the issue of the said notification. It is also stated that previously, a notification dated November 7,1989 was issued, but it was withdrawn on January 24,1990. A stay was granted for the operation of the said notification but on account of withdrawal of the said notifications the writ petitions which were filed challenging the same became infructuous. It is submitted that if the stock is not sold within a period of 20 days as contemplated in the notification it is not stipulated as to how the goods are to be sold or disposed of. THE notification is alleged to be violative of Article 19 (l) (g) of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that there was no proper application of mind and the Central Government has given its concurrence in a mechanical manner. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a discrimination has been caused between the retailers and whole-sale dealers in as muchas there is no such restrictions in so far as the retailers are concerned in respect of those dealers who fell in the category of Commission Agent no proper guidelins have been formulated. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the State is bound to regulate the supply of essential commodities and the restrictions which have been imposed are reasonable restrictions. The 'whole-seller'as per clause 2 (w) of the Order of 1980 means a dealer who sells any one or more of the trade articles mentioned in Schedule I to other dealer or bulk consumers. If the sale is made by one dealer to another of more than 50 quintals of 'gur' and 'khandsari' then he is considered to be the whole-sale dealer. A notification was issued by the Central Government on May 30,1994. The concurrence for issue of the notification by the State Government was obtained on March 17,1994 and the notification was issued brining down the prices of the commodities since unnecessary stock was held by whole-seller and they were not releasing the same on public demand. The notification cannot be said to be unreasonable for in violation of Article 19 (l) (g ). No opportunity of hearing is required to be given before the issue of notification and the only requirement was the prior concurrence of the Central Government which had already been obtained. The Gur Control Order, 1994 has prescribed the following restrictions - " (1 ). No person other than a licensed dealer shall carry on the business of purchase and sale of gur; (2) No dealer shall hold stock of Gur for a period of exceeding seven days from the date of receipt by him of such stock of Gur; (3) No dealer shall hold any stock of gur in excess of two hundred and fifty quintals at any time". The notification dated May-16,1994 was issued under clause 18 (II) of the Order of 1980 and the directions were issued under clause 25 of the same. I have considered over the matter. Under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter called as the EC Act) the Central Government has power to control production, supply, distribution of essential commoodities and for equitable distribution and availability of the commdity at fair price it may by order provide for regulating or prohibiting the production,supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein. It is undisputed that Gur is an essential commodity. The question with regard to fixation of maximum limit of wheat of 200 quintals was considered by the Apex Court in the case of Suraj Mal Kailash Chand and others Vs. Union of India and another (1 ). In the context of Article 14 and 19 (l) (g) of the Constitution it was observed by the Apex Court that the fixation of maximum limit of 200 quintals wheat at any time cannot be held to be arbitrary. The persons who were holding the stock more than the permissible limit were said to be not without remedy. Under clause 25 of the Order of 1980 they are at liberty to move the State Government to issue necessary directions for the disposal of the excess quantity of wheat in their possession. The observations were made that the State Government would allow a reasonable time within which the petitioners in that case were to be permitted to dispose of the excess quantity of wheat, if any. The State Government was also left. free to take over the excess stock under clause 19 of the Order at the procurment price. This court in the case of M/s Nav Bharat Rice and General Mills Vs. State of Rajasthan and others (2), has held that fixing of the stock limit for storage is to prevent hoarding of the rice and therefore it is a reasonable restriction within Art. l9 (6) on the right conferred by Art. l9 (l) (g ). Even completely prohibiting manufacture and sale of a particular drug combination was held to be reasonable and not violative of Article 19 (l) (g) by the Apex Court in the case of Systopic laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr. Prem Gupta and others The notification banning on fishing by mechanised nets was held to be not violative of Article 19 (l) (g) and the restriction was considered to be reasonable within the meaning of Article 19 (6) in the case of State of kerala Vs. Joseph Antony In the case of Union of India Vs. Cynamide India ltd (5) the order fixing price under Drug (Price Control ) Order was held not to be a quasi-judicial activity requiring observance of principles of natural justice and was held to be a legislative activity. Ceiling on 30% of the chit amount and placing other restrictions was held to be reasonable and in the interest of subscriber by the Apex Court in the case of Shri Ram Chits and Investment (P)Ltd Vs. Union of India and others In M/s Kishan Lal Praveen Kumar and others Vs. State of Rajasthan (7), it was observed by the Apex Court that the notification fixing a maximum limit of 200 quintals of wheat to be possessed by a dealer at any one time could only mean at only given point of time. It does not mean that if a dealer was in possession of 200 quintals at 10 a. m. and sold 120 quintals between 10 a. m. to 12 noon,he is barred from purchasing 120 quintals after 12 noon,so as to make up the 200 quintals. All that is necessary is that he should not have in his possession at any one time more than 200 quintals. In M/s Laxmi Khandasari etc. Vs. State of UP and others (8), restrictions imposed on the production of sugar for a limited period was held to be reasonable and not violative of Article 19 (1) (g ). It was observed that - "it is abundantly clear that fundamental rights enshrined in part III of the Constitution are neither absolute nor unlimited but are subject to reasonable restrictions which may be imposed by the State in public interest under cl. 2 to 6 of Article 19. As to what are reasonable restrictions would naturally depend on the nature and circumstances of the case, the character of the statute,the object which it seeks to serve the existing circumstances, the extent of the evil sought to be remedied as also the nature of restraint or restriction placed on the rights of the citizen. It is difficult to lay down any bard or fast rule of universal application but this court has consistently held that in imposing such restrictions the State must adopt an objective standard amounting to a social control by restricting the rights of the citizens where the necessities of the situation demand. It is manifest that in adopting the social control and of the primary consideration which, should weight with the court is that as the directive principles contained in the Constitution aim at the establishment of an egalitarian society so as to bring about a welfare State within the frame-work of the Constitution, these principles also should be kept in mind in judging the question as to whether or not the restrictions are reasonable/if the restrictions imposed appear to be consistent with the directive principles of State policy they would have to be upheld as the same would be in public interest and manifestly reasonable. Further, restrictions may be partial, complete, permanent or temporary but they must bear a close nexus with the object in the interest of which they are imposed. Sometimes even a complete prohibition of the fundamental right to trade may be upheld if the commodity in which the trade is carried on is essential to the life of the community and the said restriction has been imposed for a limited period in order to achieve the desired goal. Another important consideration is that the restrictions must be in public interest and are imposed by striking a just balance between the deprivation of right and danger or evil sought to be avoided. Thus, freeing of stock of food-grains in order to secure equitable distribution and availability on fair prices have been held to be a reasonable restriction in the cases of Narendra Kumar Vs. The Union of India (1960) 2 SCR 375:air 1960 SC 430 Diwan Sugar & General Mills (P)Ltd. Vs. The Union of India (1959) 2 Supp. SCR 123; AIR 1959 SC 626, and the State of Rajasthan Vs. Nath Mal, 1954 SCR; AIR 1954 SC 307. " Prohibition on the manufacture of Chhena and Panner for a short period was held to be reasonable by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahesh Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and another D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3213/ 1992, decided on May 8,1992.
(3.) IN accordance with the powers conferred on the Central Government control on production, supply and distribution of the essential commodity is contemplated. The regulation or prohibition, therefore could fall within the purview of the Essential commodities Act. The exercise of such power should not be violative of fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, more particularly Article 19 (l) (g) of the Constitution of INdia. Article 19 (6) permits reasonable restrictions and therefore, the action of the respondents has to be examined in the light of the facts as to whether the fixation of stock limit or time limit is within the reasonable restriction or not?. Various decisions of this court as well as of the Apex Court referred to above have upheld the action of the respondents in fixing the maximum stock limit. This action is normally taken in public interest in order to check the stock of essential commodity. The very purpose of the Act or various notifications/orders issued thereunder will be frustrated if the Government fails to check the rise in prices which is the duty of the Government. It is possible only when the whole-sale dealers are forced to bring their stock in the market. The notification dated May 16,1984 is saved under Article 19 (6) and is not violative of Article 19 (l) (g) of the Constitution. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is discrimination between whole-sale dealers and retailers inasmuch as there is no maximum limit prescribed in so far as the retailers are concerned, has no substance as both type of the dealers constitute a different class by themselves. One cannot be compared with the other. A retailer, even otherwise, is not having so much of the stock as the whole-seller has and therefore the notification issued in respect of whole-sale dealer does not suffer from the vice of discrimination. Gur Control Order of 1994 issued by the Central Government on May 13,1994 is also under challenge according to which a restriction has been placed that no person other than a licenced dealer will carry on business of purchase and sale of gur and further restriction has been placed that no dealer shall hold stock of gur for a period of exceeding seven days from the date of receipt by him of such stock of gur. The maximum quantity which could be retained was 250 quintals. This Control Order has also been challenged. The notification which has been issued on May 16,1994 is with the prior concurrence of the Central Government which was given on March 17,1994 when the Central Government itself has issued another notification, it cannot be said that there is non-application of mind while giving such a permission and therefore the notification dated May 16,1994 cannot be said to have been issued without application of mind. The restriction with regard to 250 quintals to be maintained as maximum quantity of stock is therefore held to be reasonable. So far as the question of maximum period for which the stock could be maintained is concerned, the words 'at any time' have been interpreted by the Apex Court in the case of kishanlal Pawan Kumar (supra ). Complete restriction has been placed with regard to the disposal of the stock. The problem may arise with regard to the stock as on the date of coming into force of the notification. The Apex Court has held that the State Government can issue the appropriate direction for such a stock under clause 25. I am of the view that instead of directing the petitioners to move and obtain the directions, the time of 15 days is given from today to bring the stock within the limit prescribed under the notification dated May 16,1994. The problem of any excess stock thereafter would not arise since one can purchase the commodity in quantity from the market only after the stock to the extent permissible by the notification is disposed of. If any person has disposed of 50 quintals out of the maximum of 250 quintals, then he is entitled to purchase to the extent of 50 quintals only. The first part of the notification is in accordance with law and the judgments given by the Apex Court. ;