ORDER This is an application for obtaining a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to show cause why the order dated 18-1-1955 should not be set aside and also for quashing the said order and for costs of and incidental to this application as against the respondents. 2. It appears that in the State of Manipur in Gazette Extraordinary No. 61-E-31 dated 24-11-1951, Notification No. DR/80/FCC/51 dated 20-10-1951 was published containing the Manipur Foodgrains (Movement) Control Order 1951 and in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 3, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 the Manipur Government ordered that no person should export or attempt to export any rice, paddy or products thereof from Manipur to any place outside Manipur except under and in accordance with the terms issued by the State Government in this behalf; vide para 3(a) of the Order. The Central Government by notification No. Py-11-656(36)/54 dated 10th July 1954 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act 1946 substituted another order for the order which was published earlier vide Notification dated 20-10-1951 referred to above and by means of S. 3 of the new order it was laid down : "As from the date of the commencement of this order there shall be no prohibition, restriction or control on the movement of rice from any place in a State to any other place within or outside that State nor shall there be any regulation or control in any manner whatsoever in relation to the production, price or distribution and price." 3. The ban imposed on the export of rice by the Extraordinary Gazette dated 24-11-1951 was thus discontinued, on the movement of rice and rice products from 10-7-1954. 4. The present petitioner purchased 35 maunds of rice at Rs. 7/4/- per maund and 45 maunds of chira (rice products) at Rs. 13 per maund at Imphal in February 1955 and in order to do some business and make some profits on 24-2-1955 boarded a lorry No. 488 MNS in Imphal the said 35 maunds of rice and 45 maunds of chira for taking them to Dimapur where rice was sold at Rs. 15/8/- per maund and chira was sold at Rs. 24/- per maund. 15/8/- per maund and chira was sold at Rs. 24/- per maund. The said motor lorry reached Kangpokpi at 3 P.M. on 24-2-1955 and respondent 2 under order of respondent 1 illegally stopped the petitioner from proceeding further than Kangpokpi and so the petitioner had to return back to Imphal thus suffering considerable financial loss in business. According to the petitioner respondent 1 has been acting under the (repealed) notification of the Government of Manipur dated 20-10-1951 referred to above, and orders have been issued to respondent 2 to illegally ban the movement of rice and rice products from Manipur to places outside Manipur even though the said notification has legally been repealed by the latter Notification of the Central Government dated 10-7-1954 to which also reference has been made above earlier. 5. The petitioner has further alleged that the Government of Manipur have by means of the order dated 18-1-1955 No. CS/3/55 illegally violated the order of the Central Government dated 15-7-1954 (10-7-1954 ?) by banning export of rice from Manipur and thereby there has been an invasion on the fundamental rights conferred on the petitioner by Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. According to this provision of the Constitution all citizens of the Indian Union have the right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation or business. The order of respondent 1 in stopping the petitioner to carry the goods mentioned above as a trader to Dimapur is neither judicial nor quasi-judicial order and there is no special or adequate legal remedy against him. The petitioner made a demand on the Manipur Government on 15-3-1955, by means of a registered notice to allow him to proceed to places outside Manipur with rice and rice products. But the Government is alleged to have neglected to grant any relief on such demand so the present writ for mandamus has been brought before this Court on the ground that the respondents have acted in breach of law and without jurisdiction and in contravention of an obligation under the Central Governments order dated 10-7-1954, by refusing to give the petitioner any relief and by refusing to withdraw the illegal order No. CS 3/55 dated 18-1-1955. 6. 6. The respondents did not challenge the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of his writ petition although a number of dates were sought for and allowed to them and on the date of hearing of arguments when the learned Advocate for the petitioner had concluded his preliminary arguments, the learned Government Advocate wanted time for filing an affidavit in rebuttal by the next Court day, and this was allowed. Today an affidavit has been filed on behalf of one Sham Kishore Singh, Prosecuting Sub-Inspector, and in this affidavit it has been alleged that the vehicle No. MNS 488 was found plying on Dimapur-Imphal Main Road at Kangpokpi on 24-2-1955 with the following defects : (a) The vehicle was being driven with invalid certificate of fitness in violation of S. 38(1), Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. (b) The said vehicle was being driven with invalid certificate of registration in violation of S. 38(1), Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. (c) the said vehicle was driven with an invalid road permit in violation of S. 58(2), Motor Vehicles Act 1949 and R. 78(a) of the Motor Vehicles Rules. (d) The said vehicle was being driven with un-taxed or invalid token in violation of S. 4, Assam Motor Vehicles Taxation Act or R. 11 of the Assam Motor Vehicles Rules extended to and being in force in this State. (e) The said vehicle was being driven as an uninsured vehicle in violation of S. 94, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and so Koijam Ibohal Singh owner of the said vehicle has been prosecuted under various Sections of the Motor Vehicles Act vide charge-sheet- flag A. Even in this affidavit it has not been contended that respondent 2 had any legal authority to stop the petitioner from proceeding further than Kangpokpi with rice and chira. 7. An additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in reply to the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and this reply shows that an entry was made in the general diary of the Kangpokpi police outpost on 24-2-1955 with regard to the stopping of the movement of rice and chira without permit but no entry was made regarding infringement of any Section of the Motor Vehicles Act by the owner, when the petitioner was stopped by the police at Kangpokpi from taking rice and chira beyond Kangpokpi. No affidavit has been filed in this case by the Officer-in-charge, Kangpokpi outpost denying the allegations made in Para 2(a) of this affidavit filed by the petitioner. This affidavit further shows that on 23-3-1955 one Muralidhar Agarwala was also not allowed to take rice in a lorry to Dimapur and his rice has also been seized by the Manipur police. Similarly on 29-3-1955 Mohan Lal Marwari of Maxwell Bazar, Imphal was also not allowed to carry rice beyond Kangpokpi. According to the petitioner motor vehicle hired by him was bona fide and the version that the vehicle was stopped on account of defects alleged in the affidavit of the respondents is not correct as no enquiry was made about the defects at the time when the petitioner was not allowed to carry rice further than Kangpokpi. A copy of the order dated 1-5-1955 sent by the Deputy Commissioner, Manipur to Chiranjilal Modi informing him that no permit of rice or chira could be issued by this officer has been filed, vide flag D in order to show that the export of rice is being banned by respondents 1 and 2 in-spite of the order of the Central Government to the contrary. The letter No. CS 3/55 dated 13-1-1955 runs as follows : "From the Chief Secretary to the Government of Manipur to the Deputy Commissioner of Manipur. Subject :- Issue of permits for export of rice from Manipur. Sir, I am directed to say that the Government have decided that all issue of permits for the export of rice from Manipur should be stopped with immediate effect. It has also been decided that the permits already issued which have not been used uptill now, should be treated as cancelled. You are requested to kindly take action accordingly. Yours faithfully, SD/- P.C. Deb, Chief Secretary." 8. Memo No. 441-2 C. P. dated Imphal, 20-1-1955 was issued from the office of the Inspector General of Police, Manipur to the officer-in-charge-Kangpokpi and Mao Police outpost for information and necessary action, and in this Memo, a copy of the letter No. V.88/189/D.C. dated Imphal, 20-1-1955 from the Deputy Commissioner, Manipur to the Inspector General of Police Manipur was attached. This letter purports to have been issued under the Government of Manipurs letter No. CS/3/55 dated 18-1-1955, to which reference has already been made above. This letter purports to have been issued under the Government of Manipurs letter No. CS/3/55 dated 18-1-1955, to which reference has already been made above. Respondent 2 appears to have interpreted the letter of the Inspector General of Police dated 10-1-1955 to mean that all exports of rice had been banned and so a number of dealers carrying rice to Dimapur appear to have been stopped at Kangpokpi. 9. The Defence of India Rules under which control was exercised by the Government on essential commodities during the second world war expired on 30-9-1946 and all orders made thereunder also expired on the same date. On 1-10-1946, however, there came into force the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Ordinance, 1946, promulgated by the Governor General and published in the Gazette of India on 25-9-1946. Section 3 of this Ordinance conferred extensive powers on the Government to control, production, supply, distribution and trade and commerce in essential commodities as defined in S. 2(a) thereof. Section 5 provided that until other provisions were made under this Ordinance, whether notified or not, whatever authority under R. 80-B or sub-rule 2 or sub-rule 3 of R. 81 of the Defence of India Rules in respect of matters specified in S. 3 which were in force immediately before the commencement of this Ordinance was, notwithstanding with the expiration of the said rule to continue to remain in force so far as consistent with this ordinance and was deemed to be an order made under S. 3 ......... 10. In exercise of the powers conferred by S. 4 of the 1946 Ordinance the Governor General on 21-10-1946 made the notified order No. Py. 603(2)-1 directing that the powers conferred on the Central Government by S. 3(1) of that Ordinance should, in relation to foodstuffs be exercisable by any Provincial Government, subject to certain conditions therein set out. 11. Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act 1946 (Act 24) was enforced on 19-11-1946 and S. 3 of the Act conferred powers on the Central Government so far as it appeared to it necessary or expedient for maintaining or increasing supply of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair price. Under S. 2 of the Act essential commodity was deemed to include foodstuffs. 12. Under S. 2 of the Act essential commodity was deemed to include foodstuffs. 12. Section 4 of the Act provided for delegation of powers and the Central Government was empowered to direct by notified order that the power to make orders under S. 3 could be exercised in relation to such matters and subject to such condition, if any, as might be specified, by any such State Government or such officer or authority subordinate to State Government as might be specified in the direction. 13. The Manipur Government promulgated the Manipur Foodgrains Movement Control Order 1951 on 20-10-1951 by means of the Notification No. DR/80/FCO/51 and in exercise of the powers of S. 3, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act 1946 which was delegated on the Chief Commissioner by the Notification of the Ministry of States No. 150-J dated 5-9-1950. Under S. 3(a) of this order it was provided : "No person shall export or attempt to export any foodgrain from Manipur to any place outside Manipur, except under and in accordance with the terms issued by the State Government or any other officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf." Clause (b) provides that no person shall transport, attempt to transport, cause to be transported or offer for transport any foodgrains into area of the State lying to the north of the village Kangpokpi except under and in accordance with a permit issued by the State Government in this behalf. 14. The respondents in the present case appear to be exercising these powers even now although by means of the Notification dated 10-7-1954 all restrictions on movement of rice have been removed. This order clearly provides that in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 3, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act 1946, the Central Government made the Rice Removal and Control Order 1954 and this order came into force on 10-7-1954. Section 3 of this order already quoted above clearly provided that there was to be no prohibition or restriction or control on the movement of rice in future. 15. Section 3 of this order already quoted above clearly provided that there was to be no prohibition or restriction or control on the movement of rice in future. 15. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents could not be justified in stopping the export of rice in view of S. 3 of the Rice Removal and Control Order 1954 and the orders dated 18-1-1955 and Memo No. 441-2 C. P. dated 20-1-1955, if they are interpreted to mean that the ban on the export of rice subsists must be held to be inoperative. 16. On behalf of the respondents the learned Government Advocate has urged that under S. 6 of the Rice Removal and Control Order 1954, it has been clearly provided that nothing in this order shall be deemed to affect the operation of the Food-grains (Licensing and Procurement) Order 1952 as under Section 3 of the Licensing and Procurement Order and which was promulgated by the Notification SRO-1140-C dated 8-7-1952, licensing of dealers in foodgrains was permitted, the State Government is entitled to see that the licensees enjoy their stipulated rights and in this view of the matter, the respondents are legally entitled to prohibit the general public from exporting rice to the detriment of the licence holders. It has further been contended that the State Government was perfectly within its rights to decide that all issue of permits for export of rice from Manipur should be stopped with immediate effect and the permits already issued should be treated as cancelled and once this order is deemed to be legal, the other order issued by the Inspector General of Police, vide Memo No. 441-2 CP dated 20-1-1955 which substantially reproduces the order dated 18-1-1955, would also be legal and valid. Even if it be conceded for a moment that S. 6 of the Rice Removal and Control Order 1954 saved the provisions of S. 3 of the Foodgrains Licensing and Procurement Order 1954, these provisions must be deemed to have ceased to be operative after the Essential Supplies Act under which they were passed, expired on 26-1-1955, vide - Chamber of Commerce Hapur v. State of U.P., (S) AIR 1955 SC 8 (A). Later on the Essential Commodities Ordinance 1955 was promulgated and it came into force on 26-1-1955 but this Ordinance did not seek to control the production, supply and distribution of trade and commerce in rice. Section 2 of this Ordinance which has been published in the Manipur State Gazette dated 11-5-1955 defines "Essential Commodities" as (i) Coal including coke and other derivatives; (ii) component parts and accessories of automobiles; (iii) cotton and woolen textiles, (iv) iron and steel including manufactured products of iron and steel; (v) paper including newsprint, paper board, and straw board, (vi) petroleum and petroleum products; (vii) salt; (viii) sugar; (ix) Banaspati; (x) edible oils. It thus becomes clear that the movement of rice was not sought to be controlled in any manner by the Essential Commodities Ordinance 1955 which was in force on 24-2-1955 and which has now been followed by Act 10 of 1955 which has received the assent of the President on 1-4-1955. It becomes clear from the above facts that there was no provision of law in force on 24-2-1955 which might justify the respondents placing any restraint on the movement of rice out of Manipur State. 17. The fact that by stopping the petitioner from carrying rice to Dimapur, there has been interference with the exercise of his fundamental rights is not disputed, vide Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India which confers on all citizens of the Indian Union the right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. It has been contended by the learned Government Advocate that a writ of mandamus does not allow to enforce moral duty and mandamus could be used only for the purpose of enforcing duty and enforcing the liability, vide Chitaleys Constitution of India, Volume II (1954) edition page 1769. The argument is that a writ of mandamus could be issued with a view to direct respondent 2 to do a certain act which might have formed a part of his duty, but this writ cannot legally be issued for prohibiting to do certain act. In my opinion this argument has no force. The writ of mandamus is founded on the Magna Charta and was to ampliate justice by the prevention of disorders arising from either a failure or defect of police. In my opinion this argument has no force. The writ of mandamus is founded on the Magna Charta and was to ampliate justice by the prevention of disorders arising from either a failure or defect of police. It is, therefore, used and resorted to on all occasions where the prosecutor has a legal power consequent upon the violation of some legal right or duty for which the law has not established any specific or adequate legal remedy, and where in justice and good government there ought to be one. The jurisdiction of the High Court extends very far within its territorial limit irrespective of whether the person against whom the order was passed resided or carried on business within or without this limit vide - Bhagat Transport Service Ltd. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1951 Him P 36 (B); - Gopal Jairam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1951 Nag 181 (C); - Motilal v. State of U.P., AIR 1951 All 257 (FB) (D), and - P.R. Nayak v. Bejen Dadiba Bharucha, AIR 1951 Bom 406 (E), in which Chagla, C.J. observed at p. 410 as follows : "Therefore if the custodian threatens the respondent to eject him, though he is not in unauthorised possession of the property, then he is acting contrary to the statute and the Court will ask him, to forbear from doing so." It is thus clear that the mandamus may be issued to. a party to do a particular thing or to abstain from doing Appellant particular thing and so the argument advanced on behalf of the respondents cannot be accepted as correct, vide also Chitaleys Constitution of India, pp. 1758 and 1766, and - Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana, AIR 1950 SC 163 (F) and Chintamanrao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC 118 (G). 18. The respondents can, therefore, be ordered to forbear from stopping the present petitioner from taking his rice to Dimapur and other places from Manipur for business purpose as the restrictions sought to be imposed on the petitioner constitutes an infringement of his fundamental rights, granted to him by the Constitution under Article 19(1)(g). 19. 18. The respondents can, therefore, be ordered to forbear from stopping the present petitioner from taking his rice to Dimapur and other places from Manipur for business purpose as the restrictions sought to be imposed on the petitioner constitutes an infringement of his fundamental rights, granted to him by the Constitution under Article 19(1)(g). 19. I have already mentioned above that the present petitioner served a registered notice on the Chief Secretary, Manipur Government, on 15-3-1955 to allow him to proceed to a place outside Manipur with rice and rice products, but the Government has so far neglected to give any reply and as no other specific and adequate legal remedy was available to the petitioner, I think a writ of mandamus should be issued against the respondents as there has been a failure of statutory obligations on the part of the public officers resulting in an infringement of the petitioners fundamental rights. 20. The fact that the owner of vehicle No. MNS 488 might or might not have been guilty of any offence under the Motor Vehicles Act, is not material for the purpose of this case when it is proved that the rice which was being carried by the petitioner was not stopped from being taken further on that account. 21. The present application, therefore, succeeds and I grant the prayer (b) of the petition. I make no order as to costs for it has been, represented to me that the respondents have been trying to regulate the price of rice in Manipur, and it was with that object in view that they tried to stop the export of rice. Application allowed.