Skip to content


Firm Vrajlal Manilal and Co. and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMisc. Petn. No. 439 of 1965
Judge
Reported inAIR1966MP301
ActsMadhya Pradesh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964 - Sections 5, 5(1) and 5(2); Constitution of India (Amendment), 1951 - Article 19(1) and 19(6)
AppellantFirm Vrajlal Manilal and Co. and anr.
RespondentState of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Appellant AdvocateK.A. Chitaley, ;A.P. Sen, ;B.V. Shukla and ;N.S. Sarwate, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateM. Adhikari, Adv. General and ;K.K. Dube, Govt. Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredAnwar Khan Mehboob and Co. v. State of M. P.
Excerpt:
- - such a result is clearly not contemplated by the act. the rest of the provisions which may be incidental do not fall under the latter part of article 19(6) and would inevitably have to satisfy the test of the first part of article 19(6).'it is obvious that a restriction on the transport, of tendu leaves even before or after the sale of leaves by the government is an integral and essential part of the creation of the monopoly when the act creates a monopoly in favour of the state in the purchase of tendu leaves and their sale or disposal thereafter, competing open or surreptitious sales of tendu leaves cannot clearly be permitted.dixit, c.j. 1. this application under article 226 of the constitution by a partnership firm, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of bidis, and one of the partners of the firm is for the issue of a direction restraining the respondents from giving effect to the instructions issued by the divisional forest officer, sagar division, on 4th june 1965 and 12th october 1965 with regard to the movement of tendu leaves. the petitioners also pray that the respondents be prohibited from imposing any restrictions on the transport of tendu leaves for the purpose of storing and using them in the manufacture of bidis.2. the matter arises thus. in 1964 the madhya pradesh tendu patta (vyapar viniyaman) adhiniyam, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as the act) was enacted 'for regulating in the.....
Judgment:

Dixit, C.J.

1. This application under article 226 of the Constitution by a partnership firm, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Bidis, and one of the partners of the firm is for the issue of a direction restraining the respondents from giving effect to the instructions issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Sagar Division, on 4th June 1965 and 12th October 1965 with regard to the movement of Tendu leaves. The petitioners also pray that the respondents be prohibited from imposing any restrictions on the transport of Tendu leaves for the purpose of storing and using them in the manufacture of Bidis.

2. The matter arises thus. In 1964 the Madhya Pradesh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was enacted 'for regulating in the public interest in the trade of Tendu Leaves by creation of State monopoly in such trade'. Section 1(3) of the Act provides that it shall come into force in such area or areas and on such date or dates as the State Government may, by notification, specify. The area specified in the notification under Section 1(3) has been defined as 'specified area' by Section 2(h). Section 3 lays down that the State Government may divide every specified area into such number of units as it may deem fit. By Section 4. It is provided that the State Government may, for the purpose of purchase of, and trade in, Tendu leaves on its behalf, appoint agents in respect of different units. Section 5(1) of the Act provides that on the issue of a notification under Sub-section (3) of Section 1 bringing the Act into force in any area, no person other than the State Government or an officer of the State Government authorised in writing in that behalf, or an agent in respect of the unit in which Tendu leaves have grown, shall purchase or transport Tendu leaves. Subsection (2) of Section 5, which is material here, runs as follows:

'(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1)-

(a) a grower of tendu leaves may transport his leaves from any place within the unit wherein such leaves have grown to any other place in that unit; and

(b) tendu leaves purchased from the State Government or any officer or agent specified in the said sub-section by any person for manufacture of bidis within the State or by any person for sale outside the State may be transported by such person outside the unit in accordance with the terms and conditions of a permit to be issued in that behalf by such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed.'

3. Rule 9 of the rules bearing the title 'Madhya Pradesh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Niyamavali, 1965, framed by the Government in the exercise of powers conferred on it by Section 19 of the Act, laid down the procedure for the issue of transport permit. This rule was in force on the dates on which the Divisional Forest Officer, Sagar Division, issued instructions concerning the movement of Tendu leaves and in regard to which the petitioners seek a prohibitory direction. That rule ran as follows:

'9 (1) Application for Issue of transport permit under clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 shall be in Form 'M' and shall be submitted to the Divisional Forest Officer or any other officer authorised by him in writing, who shall be competent to grant die permit:

Provided that the said officer, if he has reason to believe that the leaves in respect of which the application has been made have not been purchased from Government or their Officer or Agent, may, after giving the applicant such opportunity of being heard as he may in the circumstances deem fit, reject such application by an order in writing, recording the reasons for such rejection.

2. Transport permit shall be in Form 'N' and shall be subject to the following conditions:

(a) The leaves shall be transported only by the route specified in the permit and shall be produced for checking at such place or places as may be specified therein.

(b) Except-with the permission in writing of the Divisional Forest Officer or of an officer authorised by him in this behalf, the leaves shall not be transported outside the unit at any time after sunset and before sunrise.

(c) The permit shall be valid for such period as may be specified therein.'

4. During the financial year ending on 31st March 1966, the petitioner-firm purchased Tendu leaves from various collection centres and depots opened by the Government in Sagar Forest Division. The petitioners estimate that they purchased 80,000 bags of Tendu leaves from various collection centres and depots in the State for consumption in the manufacture of Bidis. It has, however, been stated in the return that the petitioners purchased about 6000 standard bags of Tendu leaves from Sagar Division. After purchasing Tendu leaves, the petitioners applied in the prescribed form under Rule 9 for permits for the transport of the purchased Tendu leaves from the various units to their godowns. The permits were granted to them.

5. On 4th June 1965, the respondent No. 3, the Divisional Forest Officer, Sagar Division, addressed the following communication to the petitioner-firm:

'Sub: Movement of tendu leaves from go-downs to shops and to Sattedars.

As from 1-6-65 the position regarding movements of old and new Tendu leaves will be as under:

(A) Movements of old leaves will be completely forbidden until orders are received from Government to permit such movement.

(B) For movements of new leaves--The procedure will be as under:

(i) All movements of Tendu leaves from one village to another must be covered by transport permit in form 'N'.

(ii) For bulk transport from Godowns to the branches:

The Transport permit can be obtained from the undersigned or his Gazetted Assistants by submitting applications in Form 'M'.

(iii) For issue of Tendu leaves from the branches to Sattedars, the transport permits in form 'N' will be issued by Range Officers and Range Assistants on receipt of applications in form 'M'.

It is hereby ordered that when R.O. is out of headquarters some R.A. must be at Range headquarters to issue the permits.

It is further directed that in such transport permits (for issue of leaves to Sattedars) the places for entering the number of giddies and manak bags may, in the first instance, be left blank for being filled in by the branch managers.

When application from the same branch is made again, the branch manager must furnish information for completing the counterfoils of the previous batch of transport permits in respect of the number of Giddies and manak bags sent out on each previously issued permit.

To avoid delay it would be desirable if the branch managers extend help to R.Os. and R. Asstts. concerned in the writing of transport permits.'

On 8th June 1965, another letter was addressed from the office of the Divisional Forest Officer to the petitioner informing it that the Divisional Forest Officer had authorised Branch Managers of the Bidi-manufacturing firms to issue transport permits in Form 'N' to the Sattedars, and asking the applicant-firm to obtain transport permit books from the office of the Divisional Forest Officer on payment of the requisite fee. Later, on 12th October 1965, the Divisional Forest Officer, finding that the petitioner-firm had misused the concession granted to it by the letter dated the 8th June 1965, cancelled it.

6. It may be noted here that during the pendency of this petition, the Madhya Pradesh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Niyamavali, 1965, that is, the rules framed under the Act, were repealed and replaced by the rules published in the Extra-ordinary Gazette dated the 14th February 1966. Rule 4 of the new Rules, namely, the Madhya Pradesh (Vyapar Viniyaman) Niyamavali, 1966, which deals with transport permits classifies them into four categories. They are, (i) permit for transport from collection depot to storage godown, (ii) permit for transport from one storage godown to another or to istribution centre, (iii) permit for transport from distribution centre to Sattedars or Mazdoors, and (iv) permit for transport outside the State. That rule contains directions for applications for the issue of these permits, and lays down the conditions to which the permits shall be subject.

7. The petitioners' case was presented before us in two aspects by Shri Chitale. learned counsel appearing for them. First of all it was said that having regard to the object of the Act, Section 5(1) could not be construed as prohibiting transport of Tendu leaves purchased from the State Government or from any of its officer or agent once they are taken outside the unit where they are purchased; that the non-obstante expression used in the very beginning of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 and the words 'tendu leaves........ may be transported by such person outside the unit in accordance with the terms and conditions of a permit' occurring in Clause (b) of Section 5(2) indicated that a purchaser was required to obtain a permit only for taking outside the limits of the unit the Tendu leaves purchased in the unit; and that Section 5(2) (b) did not in any way control the movement of Tendu leaves after being taken outside the limits of the unit where they were purchased. It was said that, therefore, the Divisional Forest Officer, Sagar Division, was not justified in issuing instructions on 4th June 1965 prohibiting the transport of new Tendu leaves from one village to another or from godowns to the branches of a manufacturing-firm or from the branches to the Sattedars, except under a permit obtained in accordance with Rule 9 of the 1965 Rules: Learned counsel proceeded to say that if, on a true construction of Section 5, the movement of Tendu leaves, after they are taken outside the limits of the unit where they are purchased, is free and unrestricted, then rule 4 of the 1966 Rules, in so far as it requires a purchaser to obtain permits for such transport of Tendu leaves, would be ultra vires.

The second way in which the case was submitted before us was that if Section 5 were to be construed as prohibiting the movement of Tendu leaves from one place to another in the State outside the limits of the unit in which the leaves were purchased, then to that extent it would be violative of Article 19(1) (f) and (g), and invalid. Learned counsel contended that after the purchase of Tendu leaves by private persons from Government or its officers or authorised agents, the question of 'monopoly' did not at all arise, and, therefore, a provision controlling or restricting the movement of Tendu leaves after they are purchased and taken outside the limits of the unit where they were purchased could not be regarded as one basically and essentially necessary for the creation of monopoly by the State in favour of itself in the trade of Tendu leaves and would not, therefore, be protected by the latter part of Article 19(6) of the Constitution, and that the restriction being unreasonable would not be saved even under the first part of Article 19(6) of the Constitution.

8. In answer, learned Advocate General appearing for the State contested the construction sought to be put on behalf of the petitioners on Section 5 of the Act, and said that Section 5(1) totally prohibited purchase or transport of Tendu leaves by any person whatsoever other than those falling under the three categories mentioned therein; that the words 'no person' used in Section 5(1) were wide enough to exclude any person whatsoever, including a person who has purchased Tendu leaves from the State Government or any of its officer or agent; that the transport of Tendu leaves by such a purchaser was permitted only to the extent mentioned in Section 5(2) (b); and that the words ''may be transported by such person outside the unit' used in Clause (b) of Section 5(2) had reference not only to the taking out the purchased Tendu leaves from the unit where they were purchased, but also to the transport thereafter of Tendu leaves from one place to another outside the limits of the unit, Learned Advocate General referred us to paragraph 9 of the return filed by the respondents, and said that, as stated in that paragraph, before the enactment of the M. P. Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964, Tendu leaves grown in reserved forests, protected forests and Government waste lands used to be sold by the State Government, usually on yearly contracts basis; that the Tendu leaves grown on private holdings used to be disposed of freely by the owners of the holdings; that owing to a large expansion of Bidi industry, the demand for Tendu leaves considerably increased with the result that the price of Tendu leaves rose very high and there was extensive pilfering of Tendu leaves from Government forest-areas, much to the loss of Government revenue; and that very often persons interested in the purchase and sale of Tendu leaves, taking advantage of the ignorance of the owners of private holdings, purchased Tendu leaves from them at a very low rate depriving them of a fair price for the Tendu leaves grown by them. It was said that it was in order to remedy this state of things that the Act was enacted creating a monopoly in favour of the State in the trade of Tendu leaves and by imposing inter alia restrictions on the purchase or transport of Tendu leaves; that the restriction on the transport of purchased Tendu leaves was integrally and essentially connected with the creation of the monopoly itself. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Akadasi v. State of Orissa, AIR 1963 SC 1047, learned Advocate General proceeded to argue that Section 5(1) being a provision creating a monopoly in the trade of Tendu leaves was completely protected by the latter part of Article 19(6) of the Constitution and its validity could not be questioned; and that if Section 5(1) was valid, then Subsection (2) of Section 5, which only relaxed the restriction on the transport of Tendu leaves, would necessarily be valid.

9. On the arguments addressed before us by learned counsel for the parties, any discussion of the matter involved in the present case must begin with an examination of the scheme of the Act. In the long title, the M. P. Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964, is described as an Act to make provision 'for re-regulating in the public interest the trade of Tendu leaves by creation of State monopoly in such trade'. That the Act creates a monopoly in favour of the State in the trade of Tendu leaves is fully confirmed by the provisions thereof. A bare perusal of sections 3 to 12 of the Act is sufficient to show that the scheme of the Act is that every grower of Tendu leaves other than the State Government, if the quantity of leaves grown by him during a year exceeds the prescribed limit, is required to get himself registered. Every manufacturer of Bidis and every exporter of Tendu leaves are also required to get themselves registered. In the areas in which the Act is in force, no person other than the State Government, and officer of the State Government authorised in writing in that behalf, or an agent can purchase Tendu leaves from owners of holdings growing Tendu leaves. The purchase price is fixed by the State Government in consultation with an Advisory Committee. The State Government, or their authorised officer or agent, is bound to purchase at the price fixed by it Tendu leaves offered for sale at the depot or depots set up in the unit. The Tendu leaves purchased by the State Government, as also the leaves collected or likely to be collected from Government land are sold by the Government. No person other than the State Government, or any officer of the State Government authorised in that behalf or an agent, can transport Tendu leaves. This restriction on transport of Tendu leaves is subject to two exceptions. A grower of Tendu leaves can transport his leaves from a place within the unit wherein such leaves are grown to another place in that unit. Tendu leaves purchased from the State, Government or any authorised officer or agent can be transported under a permit by any person for manufacture of Bidis within the State or by any person for sale outside the State. As is clear from Rule 9 of the 1965 Rules, the transport has to be by the route specified in the permit, which is required to be produced for checking at such place or places as may be stated in the permit. The transport of Tendu leaves by a purchaser after sunset and before sunrise is prohibited except with the written permission of the Divisional Forest Officer or of an officer authorised by him in that behalf. Whatever might have been the reasons which impelled the State to enter the trade of Tendu Patta as a monopolist, it is clear that the Act, by imposing restrictions on the purchase and transport of Tendu leaves, has treated a monopoly in favour of the State in the trade.

10. Turning to Section 5, the first subsection thereof plainly prohibits the purchase or transport of Tendu leaves by any person other than the State Government or an authorised officer or agent. The words 'no person' used in Section 5(1) are without any qualification and ex-elude any person whatsoever, The prohibition on the purchase or transport of Tendu leaves is no doubt operative only in that area or areas in which the Act has been brought into force by the issue of a notification under Section 1(3) of the Act. On 28th November 1964 the Government issued a notification under Section 1(3) bringing the Act into force in the entire State of Madnya Pradesh from 28th November 1964. The effect of Section 5(1) is thus to prohibit in e entire State of Madhya Pradesh the purchase or transport of Tendu leaves by any person other man those specified therein. The second sub-section of Section 5 only relaxes in certain respects me ban on transport imposed by the first subsection. It opens with the non-obstante expression 'Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1)'. This sub-section, read with Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (2), means that the first sub-section shall not be an impediment in the transport of Tendu leaves in the circumstances mentioned in Clauses (a) and (b). We are not concerned with Clause (a). The material clause here, is Clause (b). That clause permits a purchaser of Tendu leaves from the State Government or any officer or agent for manufacture of Bidis within the State or for sale outside the State to transport the leaves 'outside the unit in accordance with the terms and conditions of a permit to be issued in that behalf' by the prescribed authority. The expression 'may, be transported by such person outside the unit' refers not only to the transport of leaves from a place inside the unit to one outside it, but also to the transport of leaves from one place to another outside the limits of the unit. If the petitioners' contention that the transport under permit of Tendu leaves spoken of by Clause (b) means only the act of taking the leaves from a place inside the unit to one outside the unit were given effect to, the result would be that the leaves brought from a unit to a place outside ft would be grounded there and the purchaser would not be able to transport them anywhere either for manufacture of Bidis within the State or for sale outside the State. This result would follow because of the fact that except to the extent permitted by Sub-section (2) the prohibition on transport of Tendu leaves imposed by Section 5(1) is absolute. Such a result is clearly not contemplated by the Act.

(11) The non-obstante expression in Sub-section (2) overrides the restriction on transport imposed by Sub-section (1) only to the limited extent mentioned in Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (2). If, therefore, Clause (b) were to be construed in the narrow sense urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, then the prohibition on transport imposed would apply to transport of leaves from one place to another outside the unit from which they were taken out after purchase. In the face of the express prohibition contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of transport of Tendu leaves, it would be altogether against all canons of construction to construe the non absolute expression, with which Sub-section (2) begins, as freeing from all restriction the movement of Tendu leaves from one place to another outside the limits of a unit from where they are taken out after purchase. In our opinion, on a proper and reasonable construction of Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 5, that clause means that a permit is necessary for transport of Tendu leaves by a purchaser not only when he desires to take the leaves from within the limits of the unit of purchase to a place outside if, but also when he wants to transport the leaves from one place to another outside the unit.

12. In support of his contention that Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) deals only with the transport of Tendu leaves from a place within the uni( to another outside it, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following observations made by the Supreme Court in M/s. Anwar Khan Mehboob and Co. v. State of M. P., Writ Petn. No. 38 of 1965 dated 6-10-1965: (AIR 1966 SC 1637) while-analysing the various provisions of the Act, The Supreme Court observed:

'The second sub-section has the effect of keeping the tendu leaves within the unit until they have been purchased by or from Government. On purchase they can be transported either to a place within the State for the manufacture of bidis or exported outside the unit.'

In considering the effect of these observations, it must be remembered that the point which we have been called upon to decide in the present case did not arise for determination in the case of M/S Anwar Khan Mehboob Co., WP No. 38 of 1965 D/- 6-10-1965: (AIR 1966 SC 1637) (supra), and was not considered by the Supreme Court. That being so, those observations cannot be read as meaning that once Tendu leaves are purchased from a unit and are taken out of the limits of the unit, they can be transported anywhere within the State without a permit, and the fetter imposed by Section 5(1) on transport does not apply to such movement. In our judgment, the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Anwar Khan Mehboob and Co., WP No. 38 of 1965 DA 6-10-1965: (AIR 1966 SC 1637) (supra) are really of no assistance to the applicants. The petitioners' contention that Section 5(2)(b) does not authorise control of the movement of Tendu leaves once they are taken out of a unit cannot, therefore, be accepted.

13. The further submission of the petitioners that if on the true construction of Section 5(2)(b) of the Act it is open to the authorities to control the movement of Tendu leaves even after they are taken out of the limits of a unit, then Section 5(2)(b) would infringe their rights under Article 19(1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution and would, therefore, be invalid, is not sound. The monopoly in the trade of Tendu leaves in favour of the State has been created by the restrictions imposed on the purchase or transport of Tendu leaves by Section 5(1). That the monopoly has been created by Section 5(1) cannot be doubted in view of the statement made by the Supreme Court in AIR 1963 SC 1247 with reference to the analogous provision contained in Section 3(1) of the Orissa Kendu Leaves (Control of Trade) Act, 1961, namely, 'By imposing restrictions on the purchase or transport of Kendu leaves Section 3 has created a monopoly'. Now, Article 19(6) of the Constitution, as amended by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, inter alia lays down that nothing in Sub-clause (g) of Article 19(1) shall prevent the State from making any law relating to the carrying on by the State of any trade, business, industry etc., whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise. This provision precludes the Court from questioning the reasonableness of a law which creates a monopoly in favour of the State itself to carry on a trade to the exclusion of the citizens. Section 5(1) of the Act being a provision creating a monopoly in favour of the State in the trade of Tendu leaves is thus completely protected by the latter part of Article 19(6) of the Constitution. If the restriction imposed by Section 5(1) on the transport of Tendu leaves is thus valid, then it follows that Sub-section (2), which only liberalises the restriction in regard to transport, is a fortiori valid.

14. In Akadasi's case, AIR 1963 SC 1047 (supra), the Supreme Court rejected the contention that the creation of State monopoly must be Justified by showing that the restrictions imposed by it are reasonable and are in the interests of the general public, and said that the State monopoly in respect of any trade or business must be presumed to be reasonable and in the interest of the general public so far as Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is concerned. Dealing with the mean-ing of the expression 'a law relating to' used in Article 19(6), the Supreme Court observed-

'A law relating to a State monopoly cannot, in the context, include all the provisions contained in the said law whether they have direct relation with the creation of the monopoly or not. In our opinion, the said expression should be construed to mean the law relating to the monopoly in its absolutely essential, features. If a law is passed creating a State monopoly, the Court should enquire what are the provisions of the said law which are basically and essentially necessary for creating the State monopoly. It is only those essential and basic provisions which are protected by the latter part of Article 19(6). If there are 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 Article 19(6). In other words, the effect of the amendment made in Article 19(6) is to protect the law relating to the creation of monopoly and that means that it is only the provisions of the law which are integrally and essentially connected with the creation of the monopoly that are protected. The rest of the provisions which may be incidental do not fall under the latter part of Article 19(6) and would inevitably have to satisfy the test of the first part of Article 19(6).'

It is obvious that a restriction on the transport, of Tendu leaves even before or after the sale of leaves by the Government is an integral and essential part of the creation of the monopoly When the Act creates a monopoly in favour of the State in the purchase of Tendu leaves and their sale or disposal thereafter, competing open or surreptitious sales of Tendu leaves cannot clearly be permitted. All the Tendu leaves grown in the area to which the Act has been extended must be available to the State. In order to ensure this, it is necessary to prohibit the transport of Tendu leaves by unauthorised persons before they are collected or purchased by the Government. It is equally necessary to control the movement of Tendu leaves after they are sold by the Government so that the purchaser may not purchase surreptitiously Tendu leaves and transport them under the cover of Tendu leaves purchased from the Government by mixing the contraband Tendu leaves with those purchased from the Government. It is true that the Government cannot claim any 'monopoly right' in Tendu leaves after they are sold. But the control on the movement of Tendu leaves after they are sold and taken outside the limits of a unit, that is exercised, is not in the exercise of any right retained by the Government in the leaves sold. It is a control which is basically and essentially necessary for creating the State monopoly in the trade of Tendu leaves. In our opinion, the challenge to the validity of Section 5 on the ground that it infringes the petitioners' rights under Article 19(1)(g) must tail. Section 5, which creates the monopoly, does not directly affect any right under Article 19(1)(f) of the petitioners, who are merely Bidi manufacturers and purchasers of Tendu leaves. If it impinges indirectly on those rights that cannot make Section 5 invalid. On mis point, it is sufficient to refer to the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Akadasi, AIR 1963 SC 1047 (supra)

'If the legislation seeks directly to control the citizen's right under Article 19(1)(g), its validity has to be tested in the light of the provisions contained in Article 19(6); and if such a legislation, as for instance, a law creating a State monopoly, indirectly or incidentally affects a citizen's right under any other clause of Article 19(1), as for instance, Article 19(1)(f), that will not introduce any infirmity in the Act itself.'

15. For the above reasons, we are of theopinion that Section 5(2) (b) of the Act permitsthe authorities to control the movement ofTendu leaves after they are taken out of thelimits of the unit and that provision also doesnot in any way infringe the petitioners' rightsunder Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution,The result is that this petition fails, and is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee is fixed atRs. 200. The outstanding amount of securitydeposit, if any, after deduction of costs, shallbe refunded to the petitioners.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //