2 b to include broken rice and paddy as also broken rice and paddy products other than bran or husk.
In the writ petitions the High Court examined all the companytentions raised exhaustively and repelled the attack on the companystitutionality of s. 3 2 d of the Act as also the relevant clauses of the Control Orders.
The Control Orders imposed unreasonable res trictions on the right of the petitioners to carry on trade as arbitrary powers had been companyferred in the matter of issuing or withholding permits and there were numberprovi sions for appeal or revision against refusal to grant a permit.
By the Control Order of 1964 the Southern Zone or regions were further divided into four specified areas i.e., States of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Madras and Mysore.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 16, 1968 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petitions Nos.
32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights and Civil Appeals Nos.
The Control Order of 1965 imposed further restrictions on the movement of rice and paddy.
The applications for permits were either rejected or were number disposed of by the authorities companycerned.
Jagadish Swarup, Solicitor General and R. N. Sachthey, for respondent No.
226 of the Constitution.
Some of the petitioners had applied for permits to export powa, murmura and idling from the State of Andhra Pradesh to other States while others had applied for permits to transport one or other of the rice products to some places within Andhra Pradesh.
1802 of 1969 , respondent No.
1805 of 1969 .
In the a peals the appellants had moved the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Art.
3657 and 3658 of 1967 and 8 and 48 of 1968.
Shyamala Pappu, Bindra Thakur and Vineet Kumar, for the petitioners and the appellants.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
212 of 1969.
The Control Orders which were promulgated under s. 3 2 d of the Act were the following The Rice Southern Zone Movement Control Order, 1957.
The Southern States Regulation of Exports of Rice Order, 1964 and The Andhra Pradesh Rice and Paddy Restriction of Movement Order, 1965.
Mrs. Shyamala Pappu on behalf of the writ petitioners and the appellants before us made an attempt to raise the following companytentions in respect of the Control Orders All the three Control Orders offended Art.
By, clause 3 restrictions were placed on the movement of these companymodities from any place in any block to any place outside that block even within the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Clause 3 of this order prohibited the export by any person of rice from any place within a specified area to a place outside that area except under and in accordance with the permit issued by the State Government or an officer authorised by that Government in that behalf.
Petition under Art.
1802 to 1805 of 1969.
2 in C.As.
2 to 4 in A. No.
Ram Reddy and A. V. V. Nair, for respondents Nos.
The rice was defined by cl.
1 in all the matters .
1803 and 1804 of 1969 and respondents Nos.
There the petitioner, were dealers in rice and rice products such as puffed, parched and beaten rice beaten rice is known as powa while, parched and puffed rice is known as Murmura .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. The points involved in the writ petition and the appeals by special leave relate to the companystitutionality and validity of the provisions of three Control Orders issued under s. 3 2 d of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 Act 10 of 1955 hereinafter called the act The validity of s. 5 2 d of the act itself has also been assailed.
2 and 3 in C.A. No.
