State monopoly over tendu leaves construed narrowly: no implied ban on imported leaves or their post-entry movement.

A State monopoly statute regulating tendu leaves was construed as confined to leaves grown or produced within the State, and not as a prohibition on importing tendu leaves purchased outside the State. The Court applied the settled rule that, where two constructions are possible, the one preserving constitutionality should be preferred. On that reading, the sale, pricing, purchase, registration and transport controls operated only within the monopoly framework for local produce, and no clear language authorised a ban on imported leaves or on their movement after entry into the State.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Tendu Patta Vyapar Viniyaman Adhiniyam, 1964, and the rules made thereunder could be construed as prohibiting the import of tendu leaves from outside the State or restricting the movement of such imported leaves within the State.

Analysis: The scheme of the Act shows that it was enacted to regulate trade in tendu leaves in the public interest by creating a State monopoly in respect of leaves grown or produced within the State. The provisions requiring sale to the State or its agents, the power to fix prices, the purchase obligation, registration of manufacturers and exporters, and the permit system for transport all operate in that setting. Applying the settled principle that, where two constructions are possible, the one preserving constitutionality should be preferred, the Act and the rules were read as confined to the State monopoly in locally grown or produced leaves. The transport of tendu leaves purchased outside the State and brought into the State for manufacture of bidis was held not to be integrally connected with the monopoly created by the Act, and no clear language was found imposing a ban on such import or on movement after import.

Conclusion: Section 5 did not prohibit import of tendu leaves from outside the State, nor did it authorise restriction of their movement merely because they had been imported. The complaint and seizure could not be sustained on that basis, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statute creating a State monopoly will be construed as extending only to those provisions and restrictions that are essentially and integrally connected with the monopoly, and in the absence of clear language it will not be read as prohibiting import or movement of goods brought from outside the State.

---