Subjective governmental satisfaction upheld where relevant material supported emergency regulation and the classification remained rational.

The Court held that an executive opinion formed under Rule 114(2) is reviewable only to test whether it was made in good faith on relevant material and with a rational basis; the Government's satisfaction was upheld because reports on mechanisation, unemployment, price rise and labour unrest supported it. It further held that limiting the notification to three districts was based on real differences and had a reasonable nexus with equitable distribution and fair prices for husks, so Article 14 was not violated. The measure was also within the enabling power under the Defence of India Act and amounted to a permissible restriction in the public interest, so the challenge under Article 301 failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Government's opinion under Rule 114(2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971 was open to judicial review and was supported by relevant material; (ii) whether the impugned notification violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India by making an unreasonable classification; (iii) whether the notification was inconsistent with the Defence of India Act and infringed the freedom of trade under Article 301 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the State Government's opinion under Rule 114(2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971 was open to judicial review and was supported by relevant material.

Analysis: The power under Rule 114(2) was conditioned on the Government being of opinion that regulation or prohibition was necessary or expedient for the stated public purposes. Such opinion, though subjective in form, had to be formed in good faith on relevant considerations and could be examined to see whether there were any materials at all and whether the decision was one that a reasonable authority could reach. The materials before the Government, including the reports on mechanisation, unemployment, price rise of husks, and labour unrest in the affected districts, furnished a rational basis for the formation of opinion.

Conclusion: The Government's opinion was validly formed on relevant material and was not liable to be struck down.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned notification violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India by making an unreasonable classification.

Analysis: The notification operated only in the three districts where mechanised extraction had caused substantial consumption of husks, higher prices, and shortage for the traditional sector, while the remaining districts did not present the same situation. The distinction was based on real differences in conditions and had a direct relation to the object of securing equitable distribution and availability of husks at fair prices. The classification therefore bore a reasonable nexus to the purpose of the measure.

Conclusion: The classification was reasonable and did not offend Article 14.

Issue (iii): Whether the notification was inconsistent with the Defence of India Act and infringed the freedom of trade under Article 301 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Rule 114 was held to be within the scope of the enabling power under Section 3(2)(21) of the Defence of India Act. The restriction was also consistent with Section 38, since the measure interfered with ordinary avocations and property only to the extent necessary for public safety and public interest. The restriction was imposed under emergency legislation for the larger public interest and was treated as a reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public. The challenge under Article 301 accordingly failed.

Conclusion: The notification was within the statutory power and did not violate Article 301.

Final Conclusion: The impugned notification was upheld as a valid exercise of emergency regulatory power, supported by relevant material, and the constitutional challenges failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an executive order is based on subjective satisfaction under an enabling provision, the Court may examine only whether the satisfaction was formed in good faith on relevant material and whether the resulting classification or restriction has a rational nexus with the statutory purpose.

---