https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276737 Article 19(6) protects only those provisions of a State monopoly law that are essential and integral to the monopoly; subsidiary or regulatory provisions must independently satisfy constitutional scrutiny. Price-fixation for Kendu leaves was treated as a regulatory measure, not an essential incident of the monopoly, and was sustained as a reasonable restriction. Provisions allowing purchase and transport through the Government, its officers, or appointed agents were upheld because the statutory scheme contemplated agency in the strict sense, acting wholly on behalf of the State. However, the ad hoc agency rule and the executed agreement were invalid because they left key terms unsettled and created an arrangement inconsistent with true agency under the Constitution and the statute. en-us Wed, 05 Dec 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Nov 2018 15:14:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276737 Article 19(6) protects only those provisions of a State monopoly law that are essential and integral to the monopoly; subsidiary or regulatory provisions must independently satisfy constitutional scrutiny. Price-fixation for Kendu leaves was treated as a regulatory measure, not an essential incident of the monopoly, and was sustained as a reasonable restriction. Provisions allowing purchase and transport through the Government, its officers, or appointed agents were upheld because the statutory scheme contemplated agency in the strict sense, acting wholly on behalf of the State. However, the ad hoc agency rule and the executed agreement were invalid because they left key terms unsettled and created an arrangement inconsistent with true agency under the Constitution and the statute. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 05 Dec 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276737