Prior Presidential sanction under Article 304(b) is mandatory for trade restrictions; subordinate orders fail if the enabling law is void.

Article 301 guarantees freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse, while article 304(b) permits State restrictions only subject to prior Presidential sanction for a Bill or amendment introduced for that purpose. The text treats section 3 of the Public Safety Measures Act, 1950 as falling within this constitutional field and notes that no Presidential sanction was obtained. On that basis, section 3 was held unconstitutional, illegal and void. Because the Paddy (Acquisition and Movement) Control Order, 1950 depended entirely on section 3, the Order was also void and the convictions, sentences, forfeiture and fine could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 3 of the Public Safety Measures Act, 1950 was void for want of previous sanction of the President under article 304(b) of the Constitution, and whether the Paddy (Acquisition and Movement) Control Order, 1950 issued under that provision was therefore invalid.

Analysis: Article 301 guarantees freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse throughout India, while articles 302 to 304 regulate the permissible restrictions. Article 304(b) empowers a State Legislature to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse with or within the State, but the proviso requires previous Presidential sanction before a Bill or amendment for that purpose is introduced or moved. The subjects dealt with by section 3 fell within the State List, but that did not exclude the operation of the constitutional limitation in article 304(b). The legislative power under article 246(3) had to be read with the restriction imposed by article 304(b), and the pith and substance of the provision showed that it regulated trade and movement of essential articles within the constitutional field covered by article 304(b). The measure was enacted after the Constitution came into force, yet no Presidential sanction had been obtained at any stage.

Conclusion: Section 3 of the Public Safety Measures Act, 1950 was unconstitutional, illegal and void for non-compliance with the proviso to article 304(b).

Issues: Whether the Paddy (Acquisition and Movement) Control Order, 1950 and the convictions founded on it could survive after section 3 was held void.

Analysis: The Control Order derived its authority entirely from section 3 of the Public Safety Measures Act, 1950. Once that source provision failed, the order itself had no legal foundation. The alleged contraventions of the order could not therefore amount to offences punishable in law, and the convictions and sentences passed under the order were unsustainable.

Conclusion: The Control Order was void, and the petitioner's convictions, sentences, forfeiture and fine could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The revision petitions succeeded, the convictions and sentences were quashed, and the petitioner was acquitted with consequential refund of the fine and forfeited paddy value.

Ratio Decidendi: A State law imposing reasonable restrictions on trade, commerce or intercourse with or within the State that falls within article 304(b) cannot be validly introduced or moved without previous Presidential sanction, and any subordinate order resting wholly on such an invalid provision is also void.

---