VRAJLAL MANILAL & CO. & ORS. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

VRAJLAL MANILAL & CO. & ORS.

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

April 25, 1969

[M, HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., J. M. SHl!LAT,

V. BHAllOAVAr

K. S. Hl!GDB AND A. N. GROVBI., 11.)

Madhya Pradesh Ttndu, Pattu (Vyapar Vinlyaman) Adh/nJyam (29 of 1964), s. 5(2) and r. 9 of Ruin made thereunder-State monopoly In tradf--Rtstrktlon on transport-Whether integral part of monopO/'J'-Ruaonab/eness of-I/ violate of Art.r. 19(1) cl (g) and 304.

Adh/nJyam

The Madhya Pradesh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964 waa puoed for rcgulatins trade in tendu leaves in the public intereot by crutins State monopoly in that trade, that is, in the purcbue and oale of tendu leaves. Under 1. 5 (1) when the Act is brought into force In an ana, no person, except the Government, ii. authorised oftlcer or &jl!Dt in respect of the unit where the leaves arc gtown can purchase or tramport them. Explanation I permits purchases from Government, it! authorised officers and agents and s. 5(2) permits two categories of per-IOOI to tramport the leaves, namely : (a) grower, from one place to another within the unit where they are grown; and (b) the purcbuer, under Explanation I. either for manufacturing bidis within the State or for their export outside the Slate. under permit in accordance with ltt terms and conditions. Rule 9 of the I 965 Rules made under the Act provides far the application to be made for transport permit.

The appellants had several branches in different areas of the State. Whenever they purchase the leaves they have to be moved to their ware-bouoes outside and from there to their branches and then, to the sattedars, that is, independent contractors, who undertake to have bidis rolled through matdoors to whom the satttdars distribute tobaceo and the tendu leaves supplied by the appellants. There were 6 to 7 thousand such sauedara and the number of mazdoors employed by the sattedars was very Iarsc.

The appellants applied for and ob\ained permits authorising them to transport the leaves purchased by them to their godowns situate oullide the units. On June 4, 1965, tbe Divisional Forest Officer issued an order which forbade altoaether movement of old leaves, that is, those which were In atoct when the Rules came into force. The order also provided that permits illuea by the Foreat Department would be necessary for lrlDIPOrt of the lea- from warehoules to branches, and from these to the '1lltld4rs, aod when the •tl.edars distributed leaves to the ma1.doori employed by him. On reprnentation by the appellanta, pointina out the di11leultiea involved in obtaining such permits the branch manaaen of tho bldi manufaeturina firms were authorised to iuue tran9\>0rt permits to the sattedan; but findina that the branch manascrs were 1asuing permits for bulk tnnoport, the District Forest Ofllcer rcacinded the relaxation. The appellants thereupon challenged the validity of •· 5 and r. 9 in the ffiah Coutt as violating Art. 19(1 )(f) and (g) and Arts. 301 and 304 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the petition.

In appeal to this Court,

HELD: Whats. 5(2) and r. 9 are intended to require i• that manu-facturer must have permit to move the leaves purch•sed by him from tho

Unit where he has purchased them to his warehouse outside, from there to his branches and also when he transports then to his aattedars. But no such permit is inteded to be necessary when the leaves are distributed for the manufacture of bidis• by those sattedars to the mazdoors. Such construction would make the restriction imposed !easonable within the meaning or Arts. 19(1) (5) and (6) and Art. 304(b). [412A-C]

Such

The Legislature thought that it was in the public interest to entrust the entire trade to the State which would fix reasonable prices in consulta-tion with an advisory committee and make it, at the same time, compul-sory for the State to purchase the entire stock which would be offered for sale at those pri..,s. Considering the object of the Act, it cannot be said that such monopoly was unreasonable. But transport of the leaves once purchased or sold would not prime facie be an integral part of monopoly m the trade and restrictions on such transport should be reasonable. It may be that free movement of leaves even after they are sold would create difliculty in effectively implementing the intended monopoly in the trade or that such free movement would make checking of illegitimate trans""" -tions in the leaves difficult and therefore some check on movement is necessary. But, considering the extraordinary inconvenience which would be caused to the manufacturer and balancing that with the mischief feared by the State, when s. S was enacted, it could not have been intended that the manufacturer should also obtain permits in respect of leaves distributed, to the vast number of mczdoors for rolling the bidis, by the sattedars who were themselves considerable in number. [410C; 411G)

In the view, the restrictions against free transport cannot be held to be unreasonable except to the extent of its requiring permit for dis-tribution to the mazdows. ' The order cancelling the concession also could not be challenged as an unreasonable restriction. [417D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2262 of 1966.

Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 22, 1966 of :he Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 439 of 1965.

A. K. Sen aJlld Rameshwar Nath, for the appellants.

. I. N. Shroff, tor the respondents.

Th.e Judgment of the Court was delivered by

This appeal under certillcate is directed against

· Shelat, J. This appeal under certillcate is directed against the judgment ot the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants in that Court.

The appellants 1are partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling bidis and purchase, stock, transport and consume for that purpose considerable quantity of tendu leaves. In 1964, the State Legislature passed the Madhya Pradesh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 29 of 1964 (here-inafter referred to as the Act). The Act received the President's assent on November 23, 19Ji4 and was brought into force on Nov-ember 28, 1964. The Act inter alia created State monopoly in

the trade of tendu leaves and under s. 5 ( 1) thereof prohibited anyone, excepting those mentioned therein, either to purchase or tra.n&port tendu leavr.s. Sub-s. 2 of s. 5, however, pennitted grower to traruport them within the unit where they grow and purchaser who has purchased them from the State Government, its authorised officers and agents for manufacturing bidis or for exporting outside the State to transport them outside such unit under permit and in 11ccordance with the terms lli!ld conditions thereof. By virtue oi s. 19 the State Government framed rules called the Madhya Pradesh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Niyamavali, 1965 (referred to hereinafter as the rules). Rule 9 of the said rules provided for an application for transport permit in form M and the issuance of such pennit in form N. The appellants accordingly applied for and obtained permits authoris-ing them 10 transport tendu leaves purchased by them from th-: various forest unit~ to their godowns situate outside those units. In the course of their business the appellants transport the said leaves first from the said units to their warehouses, frDr.l there to their branches and thereafter distribute them and tobacco to their sattedars, who are independent cantractors, and who in their tum distribute the said leaves and tobacco to various mazdoors living in different villages for rolling the bidis. According to the prac-tice of the appellants, the said sattedars enter into contracts with them under which the appellants supply to them the said leaves and the tobacco and the sattedars deliver to the appellants bidis rolled by the mazdoors in proportion to the quantity of the leaves and tobacco supplied to them. On June 4. 1965, the Divisional Forest Officer issued an order which forbade altogether movement of old tendu leaves and as regards new leaves provided that their movement from one village to another had to be covered by permit. It also provided that permits would be oiecessary for bulk transport from warehouses to branches and from there to sattedars, and that such permits would be issued by range assistants and range officers on receipt of applications therefor. The appellants thereupon made representation to the Divisional Forest Officer mentioni.ng the several difficulties which would result from the said order and the said officer, by his order dated June 8, 1965, in partial modification of his said order, permitted branch managers of bidi manufacturing finns themselves to issue transport permits to sattedars. Finding, however, that instead of distributing the said leaves to the sattedars, the branch managers were issuing per-mits for bulk transport, the said officer on October 12, 1965 res-cinded his order of June 8, 1965. The result was that the appel-lants were required to obtain permits for moving the tendu leaves from their branch offices to the sattedars. The appellants there-after filed the said writ petition i:n the High Court claiming that nnder s. 5 and the said rules they were required to obtain permits only when moving the leaves purchased by them from units where

they were grown to their warehouses and that once they were so moved to the warehouses there could be no restriction in their further movement from the warehouses to their branches and from there to their sattedars a;nd the mazdoors. The appellants claim· ed writ in the nature of mandamus for setting aside the said orders dated June 4, 1965 and October 12, 1965 and also for striking down s. 5 if it was construed as prohibiting, except under permit, movement of the said leaves from their warehouses to the branches and from thence to the sattedars and the mazdoors. The State Goveri!llllent, on the other hand, claimed that the restrictions against transport of. the leaves were justified under s. 5 and the rules and were valid. The High Court held that on proper construe· tion of s. 5 ( 2 )(b) permit was necessary for transport of the leaves by purchaser not only when he moved them from the units where they were purchased to place outside but also when he moved them from one place to another outside the said u;nit, that s. 5 ( 1), being provision creating the State monopoly in the trade of tendu leaves, was protected by the latter part of Art. 19( 6) of the Constitution, that the restriction imposed by s. 5 ( 1) . on transport was valid and that sub-s. 2 being merely relaxation against tbe said prohibition was valid. It further held that the restrictions on transport of tendu leaves before and after the sale thereof by Government was an integral part of the trade monopoly intP.nded to prevent surreptitious sales of tendu leaves by persons other than Government, their officers and agents, that it was neces-E sary to control the movement of the said leaves to prevent pur· chasers from surreptitiously purchasing and transportin~ them under cover of leaves purchased from Government by mixm:; the contraband with those lawfully purchased and that such ,:0:1trol was basically and essentially necessary for creating the s&id mono-poly. In the result, the High Court held that the said restrictions with regard to purchase as also transport were valid and the chal-F lenge arainst s. 5 and the said rules was not sustainable.

Counsel for the appellants raised the following contentions : · ( 1) thats. 5(2)(b) should be construed, though it is couched in wide language, to mean that it prohibits without permit movement of tendu leaves from the units where they are purchased to the warehouses of the purchaser outside such units, that that restric-tion alone was necessary for effectively implementing the State's monopoly in tendu leaves, and that once they were purchased aind property in them had passed to the purchaser and the leaves were brought to his warehouse there could no longer be any necessity to restrict their movement from the stage of warehouping them to the stage of their consumption in manufacturing the bidis; (2) that neither s. S(2){b) nor the rules authorise restrictions on the movemen~ of these leaves once they were brought under permit to the warehouse, and therefore, the order dated June 4, 1965requiring the purchaser to obtain permits for transporting them from his warehouse to his bra.i:-:h and from ther~ to the sartedars and the mazdoors was ultra vires the section and the rules; ( 3) that the restrictions as to transp.irt were ancillary to and were tor the effective enforcement of the trade monopoly and not an essen-tial or integral part of the scheme of that monopoly, that they were, therefore, not protected by the latter part of Art. 19 ( 6), or Art. 304(b), and have, therefore, to pass the test of reason-ableness; and ( 4) that, if s. 5 were to be literally construed so as to mean that it authorises the restriction on movement after the leaves were warehoused requiring permits for their transport from stage to stage until they reached the mazdoors, the entire system of permits would become unworkable and the restrictions would have to be held as unreasonable; that such constructioq rendering s. 5 and the rules unconstitutional on the ground of being violative of Art. 19(1)(f) and (g) and Arts. 301 and 304 could not have been intended by the legislature. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, maintained that the language of s. 5 was clear and unambiguous, that it forbade without permit transport at any stage right upto the stage of manufacture of the bidis and that those restrictions were the essential part ol the scheme of the State monopoly a:nd therefore were protected by the latter part of Art. 19 ( 6); and further that even if they were not, they were reasonable restrictions and therefore permissible.

In support of their rival contentions counsel drew our atten-tion to the various forms provided in the rules as also to rule 4 of the new rules dated February 14, 1966 which repealed the rules of 1965. We may, however, make it clear that the parties in the presWlt appeal are governed by the rules of 1965, and therefore, anything that we say here would not govern either the construction or the effect of the new rules.

In examining the correctness of the contentions urged before us the first task is to ascertain what exactly the legislature intqnded to do while enacting s. 5. The long title of the Act clearly says that it was passed for regulating trade in tendu leaves in the public interest by creating the State monopoly in that trade, that i~ to say, in the purchase and sale of tendu leaves by the State alone and not for creating monopoly in their transport. To that end the Act empowers Government to divide the specified area or areas to which the Act is applied into units and to appoint agents for different units, and gives monopoly to Government, its authorised officers and agents to purchase these leaves from the growers at prices fixed by it and makes other provisions to achieve the said object. U~er s. 5 ( 1), from !be date when the Act is brought into force in area or areas as may be notified, no person, except the Government, its authorised officer or agent in respect of the unit where these leaves are grown can purchase or transport

them. Sub-s. l, thus, imposes tc>tal ban against purchase, sale and transport oi teiodu leaves except by the threi: categories of persons mentioned therein. Under ss. 7, 8 and 9, the Government has to fix the purchase price in consultation with an advisory com. mittee appointed therefor and open ~epots w)!ere the growers · would sell their leaves to it or to its authorised officers or agents at prices fixed as aforesaid. Though s. 5 ( 1 ) clamps ban against purchase except by those mentioned therein, explanation 1 permits purchases from Government, its authorised officers and agents and such purchases ·are deemed not to be in contravention of the Act. Notwithstapding the ban against transport under sub-s. 1, sub-s. 2 permits two categories of persons to transport the said leaves: (a) ~wer is allowed to move his leaves from one place to ·another within the unit where they are grown, and ( b) person who has purchased the leaves as aforesaid either for manufacturing bidis within the State or for their export outside the State is allowed to transport under permit leaves so pur-chased from <>Qt of the unit where he has purchased in accordance with the terms adld conditions thereof. The first exception iunade to enable the grower to sell his leaves to Government and the second. is made to enable ilie purchaser to utilise the leaves .for the two purposes for which he has purchased them.

Under the rules an exporter means person who sells tendu leaves to one having business outside the State or who exports them for the manufacture by him of bidis outside the State. manufacturer of bidis includes persqrl manufacturing them through mazdoors by advancing to them these leaves or tobacco or both. Rules 4 and 6 provide for registration ol growers, manu-facturers and exporters, and rule 7 provides for the sale of leaves purchased under s. 5(1) by Government, its officers and agents. Under rule 6 manufacturer and a,n. exporter has to maintain accounts of his stock and submit periodical returns thereof in form and I showing amongst other things the balance of stock-at the date when the last return was made the stock added and the manner of its disposal iincluding the stock consumed, sold or rendered useless and ®'troyed. Rule 8 provides for certificate of sale to be issued to the purchaser by Government, its authorised officer and agent. Undei rule 9 an application for transport permit is to be made in form M aud the permit issued must be in form N. Form M provides for giving particulars such as the quantity of leaves purchased, the UjD!it or units where they ar.e pur-chase~., the place or places where they are stored, the destination to which they are to be transported and the place or places where such transported leaves are to be stored. Similar particulars are to be mentioned in the permit as stated in form N.

These elaborate provisions in conjunction with the provisions of s. 5 indicate the extreme jealousy of the draftsman not to lea~

Ll3Sup Cl/69-12

any loopholes in the oet-work of control enabling anyone to possess these leaves by illegitimate acquisition or their being smuggled out In violation of these provisic,ns from out of the units where they are grown or from tho place where they are warehoused after !heir purchase. It is clear ~om s. 5(2)(b), the !111C6 and the said forms that the intention underlying them all is to prohibit, except under permit, the movemcint of leaves from the units where they are purchased to any place outside either for storing them or for their consumption in the manufacture of bidis or for exporting them outside the State. The elaborate treatment and the clarity of the language of these provisions makes the argu-ment, that they were intended to restrict only the movemeint from the purchasing unit to the place of storage and that the leaves would be free for subsequent movement impossible. The first limb of Mr. Sen's argument consequently cannot be upheld.

Such constructiqa, however, raises the question as to the constitutional sustainability of s. 5 and rule 9 which are the provi-sions seriously challenged before us. An identical question chal-lenging the validity of ss. 3 and 4 of the Orissa Kendu Leave (Control and Trade) Act, 28 of 1961, an Act almost simi}ar in terms to the one before us, and the scope of the amended clause 6 of Art. 19 came up before this Ceurt in Akadasi Padhan v. State of Orissa('). Dealing with cl. 6 of Art. 19 and its impact on els. (f) and (g) of Art. 19(1) this Court laid down at page 707 cl the report as follows :

"In dealing with the question aoout the precise deno-tatiQll of the clause 'a law relating to', it is necessary to bear in mind that this clause occurs in Art. 19 ( 6) which is, in se.nsi:, an exception to the main provision of Art. !9(1)(g). Laws protected by Art. 19(6) are regarded a! valid even though they impinge upon the fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(g). That is the effect of the scheme contained in Art. 19 (I ) read with clauses (2) to (6) of the said Article. That being so it would be unreasonable to place upon the relevant clause an unduly wide and liberal construc-tion. 'A law relating to' State monopoly cannot, in the context, include all the provisiott~ contained in the said law whether they have direct relation with the crea-tion of the monopoly or not. In our opinion, the said expression should be construed to mean the law relat-ing to the monopoly in its absolutely essential features. If law is passed creating State monopoly, the Court should enquire what are the provisions of the said law

(I) [1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 691.

which are basically and essentially necessary for creat-ing the State mqnopoly. It is only those essential and basic provisions which are protected by the latter part of Art. 19(6). Lf thiereare other provisions made by the Act which are subsidiary; incidental or helpful to the operation of the monopoly, they do not fall under the said part and their validity must be judged under the first part of Art. 19 ( 6). In other words, the effect of the amendment made in Art. 19 ( 6) is to protect the law relating to the creation of maµDpoly and that means that it is only the provisions of the law which are inte-" grally and esse11-tially connected with the creation of the monopoly that are ·protected. The rest of the provi-c sions which may be incidental do not fall under " the latter part ol Art. 19 ( 6) and would iirtevitably have to satisfy the test of the first part of Art. 19 ( 6)."In that case ss. 3 and 4 of the Orissa Act! were challenged on the ground that the monopolistic rights to purchase kendu leaves under s. 3 and the ri~ht to fix purchase price of those leaves conferred by the two .secuons. · impinged upon the right of the petitioners there under Art. 19(1).(f) and (g) and that the restrictions imposedi" by" them were unreasonable and were not saved either under cl. 5 or cl. 6 of Art. 19. The Court held that whereas the exclusive · right of purchase cooferred by_ s. 3 was an essential part cit the trade monopoly which could vaiidly be created under the latter part of cl. o and was therefore beyond the challenge of reason-ableness of restrictiqnts which it imposed, the exclusive right to fix th.e prices conferred by s. 4 was not, though it may be that such power was necessary to effectually enforce the trade monopoly under s. 3. Therefore, though the latter did not have to pass the test of reasonableness, the former had to under cl. 5 and the first part ol cl. 6, as it imposed restriction not only on the right under cl. (g) but alse UID(ier cl. (f). However, on examining the right of the State to fix the prices, the Court came to the conclu-sion that the restriction imposed by s. 4 on the growers of Kendu leaves was not only In their own interest but also reasonable and rejected the challenge of unconstitutionality of both ss .. 3 aind 4. A; already stated, the challenge to s. 3, which provided the exclu-sive right to" purchase and transport was confined only to the exclusive right of the! State to purchase kendu leaves. No question was raised regarding the exclusive right of transPort under s. 3. which prohibited others, save the State, its authonsed officers and agents, from tr8i!lSj)Orting the leaves from one place to another, and therefore, the Court did not express any opinion a.~ regards that part of s. 3. That question, therefore, is not concluded by that decision and is open for determination.The impugned s. 5 raises in relation to the problem of trans-port two questiQIIS : (I) whether the restrictions are an integral part of the trade monopoly it seeks to create, and therefore, free lrom any challenge as to their reasonableness under the latter part of Art. 19 ( 6), and ( 2) as regards its interpretation and scope. It may be rccallcd that in the Orissa case the Court declined to treat s. 4 of that Act which conferred the exclusive right to fix the prices on the State as an integral 8j[ld organic part of the trade monopoly in Kendu leaves but treated it only as effectively abet-. ting its implemen.tation. Can an embargo on transport by anyone, save those menuc,icd in els. (a), (b) and (c) of s. 5(1) and the manufacturers of bidis and exporters of these leaves under the permit, be regarded as an integral and organic part of the trade ~nopoly in them, i.e., m?nopoly in purchas~ng and selling them m such area or areas to which the Act is applied ? It may be as stated in the State's counter-affidavit that the trade monopoly can be effectively implemented only if the movement.of the leaves is checked and regulated by confining the right of freo movement to the State and its agents and under permits to the manufacturers of iildis and the exporters and that if lree movemqat were allowed there would be loopholes which would suffer illegitimate acquisi-:tions and sales in leaves smuggled through the areas where they grow, raising also difficulties in checking the stocks· legitimately purchased from Government. If person were to purchase quantity of leaves and is allowed to move it freely from the unit where it is purchased to his warehouse outside that unit and from there to other points, it might be easy for such purchaser to effect illegitimate sales 8IDd purchases and yet show at the same time the correct stock when checked by the authorities. It may also be that without the restrictions of movement it would become difficult, if not impossible, to identify the stock of manufacturer or an exporter when checked in his warehouse as the one which he had purchased from Government. All this may be true, but is the prohibition or regulation of transport en integral or esseptial part of the monopoly without which the monopoly which the Act seeks to create cannot come into being?

The long title of the Act recites that the Act was enacted for regulating "the !rade in tendu leaves" by creating State monopoly in such trade. Trade in tendu leaves would consist of dealing in those leaves, i.e., their purchase and sale. Transport of the leaves once purchased or sold would not prima facie be an organic or integral part of dealing in those leaves. It is something extra-neous to dealing in those leaves, something which takes place after the purchase or the sale thereof is completed and property in them has passed from the dealer to the purchaser and therefore does not form part of the trade in that commodity. That being

'.:;_~ • '

so, the restrictions on their transport contained in s. 5 cannot be held to be the integl'lll. part of _the trade monopoly but as ancillary or incidental thereto, made for its effective enforcement. If that be so, it affects the right of the purchaser under Art. 19(l)(f) to hold 81Ild to dispose of the goods he has acquired, right which is not co-related, as the right under cl. (g) is, with the monopoly which the section seeks to create. It foMows, therefore, that such provision would have to pass the test of reasonableness under cl. 5 and the first part of cl. 6 of Art. 19. That would also be the position in respect of Art. 304(b). But since the requirement of these provisions is . the same the yardstick of reasonableness would be common to all these cases. It is well recognised that wnen an enactment is found to infringe any of the fundamental tights guaranteed under Art. 19(1), it must be held to be invalid ~s those who support it can brin~ it uincter the protective provisions of cl. S or cl. 6 of that Article. To do so, the burden is on those who seek th!lt protection and not on the citizen to show that the restrictive;enactment is invalid. (cf. Saghir Ahmad v. The State of U.P.(' )" and Khyerbari Tea Co. Ltd. v. The State of Assam(').

That leads us to the next question as to the scope of the em-bargo qn movement imposed by s. 5. If read literally, sub-s. 1 ~aces total ban on any and every person against transporting the aves, except those only mentioned .in-G!s-. (a), (b) and (c) therein. •Sub-s. 2 also, if read Jiterally, would mean that an excepti<m is made only i\n1he. case of (a) ~wer who can move his leaves freely but within the unit where ey 1).ave grown, and (b) pur-chaser who has purchased the leaves for manufacturing bidis within the State or for their export outside the State, but under permit and in accordance with its terms and conditions .. Sec-F tion 5 read thus, therefore, would mean that except for these two categories of persons, no one can apply for permit to move the leaves from one place to another as if the legislature intended that thet:;es must remllin where they are when purchased. Does i$ · · that person who purchases these leaves for purposes other than manufacture of bidis or export cannot move them even [from ][the unit where he has purchased to his place of residence ]or business ? Tbat WOllld appear to be so because the provisiqns for permit apply only to the manufacturer of bidis and the exporter and to no other purchaser. That manifestly could not have been the intention of the legislature, for, the leaves being perishable, they are liable to get destroyed if their movement is totally forbidden. Quite apart from this consideration, mere literaly or mechanical CODStruction would not be appropriate where

important questions such as the impact of an exercise of legisla-tive power on constitutional provisions and safeguards thereunder are concerned. In cases of such kind, two rules of construcLon have to be kept in mind ; (I) that courts generally lean towards the constitutionality of legislative measi.ce impugned before t:1c:m upon the presumption that legislature would not delibe1 a.d;. flout constitutional safeguard or right, and (2) that while ..:on-struing such an enactment the court must examine the object :i..'!J the purpose of the impugned Act, the miscnief it seeks to proven: and ascertain from such factors its true scope and meaning. The object of the Act clearly was to regulate trade in tendu leaves 'r. the public interest and for that e,nd to create State monopo11 so that the purchasers ol these leaves may not exploit the need and th~ poverty of small growers and pay the least possible price. The legislature thought that it was in the public interest to entrust the entire trade to the State who would fix reasonable prices in consultation with an advisory committee and make at the sarr.e time compulsory for the State to purchase the entire stock which the growers would offer for sale at those prices. Cqnsidcring rhe object of the Act, it cannot be conceived that upon the assump· tion that such monopoly was in the public interest the exclusive right of the State to purchase and sell these leaves is unreason-able. But the question as regards their transport is far from easy of solution. It may be that free movement of leaves even after they are sold to merchants wouid create difficulties in effectively impl~menting the intended monopoly in their trade or that such free movement would make checking of illegitimate transactions in the leaves difficult. But then it is difficult to con-ceive of monopoly in this particular commodity, as in others, without a,ny likely loopholes whatsoever. Can the State, therefore, to plug all such loopholes pass measure which, according to the appellants, imposes unreasonable restrictions and which result< in stultifying thei; business ? There is strong school of thought which believes that monistic tendencies in economics spell stagna-tion and that pluralism is as much desirable in economics as in politics and other fields of life. That may or may not be correct, but take the present case as an illustration. According to the appellants, they manufacture as many as 1 ! crores of bidis day. They have established net-work of branches in several areas of the State. Wherever they purchase the leaves they have to be moved to their warehouses outside and from there to their branches and then to the ,attedars who undertake to have bidis rolled through mazdoors to whom they in tum distn"bute tobacco and these ]eaves supplied to them by the appellants. Even according to the Divisional Forest Officer there were as many as 6 or 7 thou-sand sattedars in Saugor district alone with whom manufacturers of bidis had c:mtracts as mentioned above The number of maz· doors whom these sattedars employ fof rolling bidis would certainly

be considerable. We were told that practically every household in villages scattered from one another engages itself in bidi-rolling labour. It is also conceivable that in some of the households not only the adults but the ~ors also would be engaged in this work. If the movement of leaves from stage to stage were to be so regulated as to require permits at each stage it is not difficult to imagine that considerable inconvenience to all engaged in the business of manufacturing bidis would inevitably ensue. The correspondence on record shows that at one time even the Divi-sional Forest Officer was of the view that it would be impossible for the staff under him to cope with the work of issuing permits at each stage of the movement of the leaves and theref<:)re permitted the branch managers of the appellants to issue permits whe;n leaves were moved from their branches to the sattedars. That relaxa-tion was, however, cancelled as in his view the branch managers began to move the leaves in bulk contrary to his intention in granti,ng that relaxation.

In spite, however, of the inconvenience which such :a system might result in, there can, at the same time be little doubt, and even Mr. Sen agreed, that sonie kind of check on movement is necessary1 for, without it the monopoly created by the Act would not effec!Ively flljllction. In our view permit system which regu-lates the movement ol leaves purchased by manufacturer @f bic'is from the unit where they are purchased to his warehouse, then to the branches and to the sattedars cannot upto that stage be regarded as unreasonable in the light of the object of the Act, the economic conditions prevailing in the State llllla the mischief wliich it seeks to cure. At the same time to expect the manufacturer to get_ permits issued to his sattedars for distribution by t¥m to the innumerable rnazdoors of comparatively small quantities of these leaves would be not only unreasonable but frustrating. The various chec.lcs imposed under the rules on the maarufacturer by way of his having to maintain stock registers, submit periodical returns, the right of inspection of the authorities etc. are sufficient to reasonably check transactions contrary to the Act. But, consi-dering the extraordfuary incqnvenience which would be caused to the manufacturer and balancing that with the mischief feared by the State, we think that when s. 5 was enacted the legislature could not have intended, that the manufacturer should also obtain permits in respect of th~ leaves distributed to the vast number of mazdoors for rol!ilng the bidis by the sattedars who are themselves considerable in number. Though, therefore, s. 5 is couched in ff apparently wide language, the very object of the Act. as disclosed in its Jong title, contains inherent limitations ag:iinst an absolute or a!ti"Strictly regulated ban as it would at first reading of the section appear.In our view, readings. 5(2) along with rule 9 of the said rules, what they are intended to require is that manufacturer must have permit to move the leaves purchased by him from the unit or units where he has purchased them to his warehouse out-side and from there to his branches and also when he transports them to his sattedafs. But, DO such permit was intended to be necessary wht;n the leaves arc distributed for the manufacture of bidis by these sattedars to the mazdoors whom he employs. construc•;on so limited in its sweep is commendable as it is con-sistent with the object of the Acu and is also in harmony with els. 5 and 6 of Art. 19(1) and cl. (b) of Art. 304. Regard-ing the ban against movement of old leaves contamed in the order dated June 4, 1965, there can be no difficulty as it is con-ceded that .,Jd leaves in the context mean those which were in stock when these rules came into force and not the balapcc of leaves left unconsumed from year to year. So construed, the restrictions against free transport cannot be held to be unreason· able and the validity of s. 5 and rule 9 as also the order of June 4, 1965, except to the exte;n\ of its requiring permit for distri-bution to the mazdoors, cannot be successfully challenged. SO far as the order dated October 12, 1965 is concerned, it was mere cancellation of concession and such cancellation cannot be challenged as restriction, much less as a:n unreasonable restriction.

In the result, subject to the obscrvatio~ hereinabove made, the appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.