https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168145 A permit-based control on movement of cotton textiles was upheld as a reasonable restriction in the public interest, because it regulated transport of an essential commodity to secure supply, distribution, and fair pricing, rather than destroying the rights under Article 19(1)(f) and (g). Sections 3 and 4 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 were also sustained, since the Act itself laid down the policy and standard and delegated only administrative details within that framework. Section 6 and the impugned Order were held valid as a priority clause operating only against inconsistent laws, not as unconstitutional delegation or repeal, and no repugnancy with the Indian Railways Act was found. en-us Fri, 14 May 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 May 2015 12:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168145 A permit-based control on movement of cotton textiles was upheld as a reasonable restriction in the public interest, because it regulated transport of an essential commodity to secure supply, distribution, and fair pricing, rather than destroying the rights under Article 19(1)(f) and (g). Sections 3 and 4 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 were also sustained, since the Act itself laid down the policy and standard and delegated only administrative details within that framework. Section 6 and the impugned Order were held valid as a priority clause operating only against inconsistent laws, not as unconstitutional delegation or repeal, and no repugnancy with the Indian Railways Act was found. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 14 May 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168145