Regulatory power under essential commodities law can include a transport ban where needed to secure supply and fair prices.

Under the Essential Commodities Act, the general power in Section 3(1) was treated as the source of authority for making restrictive orders, while Section 3(2) was read as illustrative rather than limiting. The delegation under Section 5 validly extended that power to the State Government for foodstuffs, so the ban on transporting paddy outside specified areas was within delegated competence. The term "regulate" was given a wide meaning and, in the context of securing equitable distribution and preventing shortage or inflation, could include prohibiting movement of paddy. The restrictive order was therefore upheld as a valid regulatory measure.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Government's order banning transport of paddy outside specified areas was beyond the powers delegated under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. (ii) Whether the word "regulating" in the relevant provision included the power to prohibit transport of paddy.

Issue (i): Whether the State Government's order banning transport of paddy outside specified areas was beyond the powers delegated under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Analysis: The source of power to make orders of this nature was held to lie in the general power under Section 3(1), while Section 3(2) was treated as illustrative and not restrictive. The delegation under Section 5 was read as validly extending the Central Government's powers under Section 3(1) to the State Government in relation to foodstuffs, subject to the stipulated conditions. The impugned order was therefore within the delegated authority.

Conclusion: The ban was not ultra vires on the ground of want of delegated power; the challenge failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the word "regulating" in the relevant provision included the power to prohibit transport of paddy.

Analysis: The expression "regulate" was held to be of wide import and not rigidly opposed to "prohibit". Its meaning depended on the statutory context, the object of the legislation, and the mischief sought to be remedied. In the setting of essential commodities legislation aimed at equitable distribution and fair prices, a total ban on movement could operate as a regulatory measure where necessary to secure supply and prevent shortage or inflation. The restriction was treated as consistent with the legislative scheme and not as an impermissible expansion of power.

Conclusion: The word "regulating" was held to include, in the context of the case, the power to prohibit movement of paddy.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme upheld the State's restrictive order on paddy movement as a valid regulatory measure under the delegated framework, and the constitutional challenge was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Section 3(2) is illustrative of the general power in Section 3(1), and the power to "regulate" may, in the statutory context and to achieve the Act's object, include the power to prohibit movement of essential commodities.

---