JUDGMENT S. Pathak, J. - The petitioner is a public limited company carrying on business as commission agents in respect of forward trading in certain commodities. It applied for registration under Sec. 14A(2) of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 to the Forward Markets Commission established under that Act and in this application it mentioned that it was carrying on forward trading in "Arhar ki Chooni." A certificate of registration was issued in its favour on December 15, 1962. The certificate stated that registration was granted subject to the condition that the association, viz., the petitioner, complied with such directions as were given from time to time by the Commission and that it would not conduct forward trading in any commodity other than "Arhar Ki chooni" except with the previous approval of the Commission, and further that it would sumbit to the Commission such periodical returns and information with regard to its working procedures and trading activity as may be called for by the Commission from time to time. No objection was taken at the time by the petitioner to the stipulations contained in the certificate. 2. On June 1, 1964 the Central Government acting under Sec. 17(1) prohibited forward trading in a number of items, including "Arhar ki Chooni". Consequently, the business of the petitioner in forward trading came to an end. 3. On June 2, 1964 the Commission issued a direction to the petitioner, pursuant to the condition contained in the Certificate of Registration, not to trade in non-transferable specific delivery contracts in any commodity without obtaining its prior approval in writing. It appears that the petitioner did not pay heed to this prohibition and commenced forward trading in non-transferable specific delivery contracts in linseed. Subsequently, on December 24, 1964 the Central Government issued a notification under Sec. 18(3) prohibiting forward trading in such contracts. Then on January 4, 1965 the petitioner commenced forward trading in non-transferable specific delivery contracts in groundnut oil. Now, groundnut oil is one of the commodities in respect of which forward trading was barred by the Central Government by its notification of June 1, 1964. On September 15, 1964 the Central Government issued another notification under Sec. 17(1) removing the prohibition against forward trading in groundnut oil, and by a notification of the same date, purporting to be under Sec. 15(1), it declared that that provision would apply to groundnut oil. On September 15, 1964 the Central Government issued another notification under Sec. 17(1) removing the prohibition against forward trading in groundnut oil, and by a notification of the same date, purporting to be under Sec. 15(1), it declared that that provision would apply to groundnut oil. The petitioner claims that it is entitled to carry on forward trading in non-transferable specific delivery contracts in groundnut oil. It is alleged that the Commission has objected to this activity of the petitioner, and proposes to take action against it in accordance with Sec. 20 read with clauses (b) and (c) of Sec. 21. 4. The petitioner has prayed for a number of reliefs. In essence, it prays for mandamus against the respondents, the Commission and the Union of India, not to give effect to the condition contained in the Certificate of Registration so far as it prohibits it from carrying on forward trading in any commodity, apart from those specified in the Certificate of Registration, except with the previous approval of the Commission, and not to give effect to the letter dated June 2, 1964 from the Commission prohibiting it from trading in non-transferable specific delivery contracts without such prior approval. Consequentially, the petitioner prays for an injunction against the respondents restraining them from taking action under Secs. 20, 21 and 22-A against the petitioner in respect of forward trading in non-transferable specific delivery contracts in groundnut oil. 5. The short point for consideration is whether a Certificate of Registration granted under Chapter III-A can include a condition requiring an association to carry on the business of forward trading in only such commodities, apart from those specified in the certificate of which previous approval has been given by the Commission. The petitioner states that it confined its case to non-transferable specific delivery contracts only. 6. Chapter III of the Act provides for recognition of associations. Recognition is accorded by the Central Government under Sec. 6, upon application made by the association in that behalf. The provisions of Chapter III contemplate a close control upon a recognised association, and this control is facilitated by certain powers entrusted to the Commission. 6. Chapter III of the Act provides for recognition of associations. Recognition is accorded by the Central Government under Sec. 6, upon application made by the association in that behalf. The provisions of Chapter III contemplate a close control upon a recognised association, and this control is facilitated by certain powers entrusted to the Commission. The control of the Central Government over a recognised association is expressed in its power to call for periodical returns relating to its affairs or the affairs of its members, to direct the inspection of its accounts and other documents, to make any rules or amend any rules made by it, to consider the grant on approval to bye-laws for the regulation and control of forward contracts and on its own initiative to make bye-laws for the recognised association. The Central Government is also empowered to supersede the governing body of the recognised association and in certain circumstances to suspend the business of such association for a definite period. Apart from recognised associations, there may be associations which have not applied for recognition or have not been recognised. But whether an association is a recognised association or not, it cannot carry on business relating to forward contracts unless it has been granted a Certificate of Registration by the Commission. Chapter IIIA provides for the registration of associations. Sec. 14A (1) prohibits an association from carrying on any business relating to forward contracts except under, and in accordance with the conditions of the Certificate of Registration. An association which is not a recognised association must make an application for grant of registration. A recognised association need not make such application. By virtue of Sec. 14A(3)(b) a recognised association is entitled as of right to a Certificate of Registration. 7. Chapter IV deals with forward contracts and options in goods. Forward contracts have been broadly divided into (1) non-transferable specific delivery contracts, (2) transferable specific delivery contracts and (3) other forward contracts commonly referred to as futures or hedge contracts. Secs. 15 and 17 deal with all forward contracts except non-transferable specific delivery contracts. 7. Chapter IV deals with forward contracts and options in goods. Forward contracts have been broadly divided into (1) non-transferable specific delivery contracts, (2) transferable specific delivery contracts and (3) other forward contracts commonly referred to as futures or hedge contracts. Secs. 15 and 17 deal with all forward contracts except non-transferable specific delivery contracts. The Central Government may by a notification under Sec. 15(1) prohibit forward contracts (other than non-transferable specific delivery contracts) in respect of such goods or class of goods and in such areas as may be specified in the notification, except such contracts between members of a recognised association or through or with any such member. Consequently, upon a notification by the Central Government under Sec. 15(1), the members of an association which is not a recognised association are prevented from carrying on business in forward contracts in respect of certain goods or class of goods and in such areas as are mentioned in the notification. It is only the members of a recognised association who continue to be entitled to enter into such contracts. Contracts in respect of goods or a class of goods which are not the subject of a notification under Sec. 15(1) may fall within the power vested in the Central Government by Sec. 17(1). In respect of such goods or class of goods the Central Government may by notification declare that no person shall enter into any forward contract in respect thereof except with its permission. This provision applies as much to recognised associations as to other associations. I have already pointed out that Secs. 15 and 17 deal with forward contracts which are not non-transferable specific delivery contracts. Non-transferable specific delivery contracts are the subject oil sub-Secs. (1) and (3) of Sec. 18. Sub-Sec. (1) declares that the provisions of Chapters III and IV shall not apply to non-transferable specific delivery contracts. Then there is a proviso to tire sub-section which prohibits a person from organising or assisting in the organisation of (a) or being a member of any association (other than a recognised association) in any area to which Sec. 15 has been applied if the association provides facilities for the performance of non-transferable specific delivery contracts without actual delivery. Then there is a proviso to tire sub-section which prohibits a person from organising or assisting in the organisation of (a) or being a member of any association (other than a recognised association) in any area to which Sec. 15 has been applied if the association provides facilities for the performance of non-transferable specific delivery contracts without actual delivery. Sub-Sec. (3), which is an important provision, empowers the Central Government to regulate and control non-transferable specific delivery contracts, and for this purpose to declare that all or any of the provisions of Chapters III and IV shall apply to such class or classes of non-transferable specific delivery contracts in such area and in respect of such goods or class of goods as may be specified by it. This applies in respect of all associations, whether recognised or not. 8. The contention of the petitioner is that the condition specified in its certificate of Registration prohibiting it from conducting forward trading in any commodity other than those specified in the certificate except with the previous approval of the Commission is ultra vires the powers of the Commission. It is urged that no such condition is contemplated by Sec. 14A. On the other hand, the case of the respondents is that the imposition of such a condition falls properly within the powers of Sec. 14A. It seems to me that the contention of the petitioner must be accepted. 9. Section 14A (1) prohibits an association concerned with the regulation and control of business relating to forward contracts from carrying on such business "except under, and in accordance with, the conditions of a certificate of registration granted under this Act by the Commission." The conditions must be such as are related to the carrying on of the business. It is under those conditions and in accordance with them that the business must be carried on. It is the conduct of the business, and the manner of conducting it, to which reference is made here. It is not contemplated that business shall be carried on relating to forward contracts only in respect of certain commodities and no other. That would not relate to the conduct of the business or the manner of its being earned on. That would imply the curtailment of the business, the business being confined in relation to specific commodities only, and no business being permissible in relation to other commodities. That would not relate to the conduct of the business or the manner of its being earned on. That would imply the curtailment of the business, the business being confined in relation to specific commodities only, and no business being permissible in relation to other commodities. If the construction for which the respondents canvass is accepted it will, it seems to me, entail a restriction upon a Citizens fundamental right to carry on business in certain commodities and that restriction should, in my opinion, be recognised only if the statute plainly expresses it. Such a restriction cannot, I think, be implied. It is not necessary to point out that an association contemplated by the Act includes any body of individuals which has not been incorporated and, therefore, entitled to the guarantee of the fundamental rights set out in Article 19(1) of the Constitution. 10. That the power to impose such conditions should not be implied within the compass of Sec. 14A (1) is apparent from the consideration that specific power to control business relating to forward contracts has been vested in the Central Government in the provisions contained in Secs. 15, 17 and 18. Under those provisions, there is sufficient amplitude of power enabling the Central Government to make provision for regulating and prohibiting business relating to forward contracts qua commodities and qua areas. The respondents say that the power to impose the condition against business in forward contracts relating to non-transferable specific delivery contracts must be construed in Sec. 14A (1) in order to prevent the ruin occasioned by speculative transactions. If that be the object, then the statute made ample provision for the conferment of an appropriate power in the Central Government. There was no reason why the grant of power should be duplicated, and conferred also upon the Commission, a body not co-ordinate in jurisdiction with the Central Government but, as will appear from the provisions of Chapters II and III, its creature and subordinate. Then, there are other considerations which fortify me in the view to which I am inclined. There was no reason why the grant of power should be duplicated, and conferred also upon the Commission, a body not co-ordinate in jurisdiction with the Central Government but, as will appear from the provisions of Chapters II and III, its creature and subordinate. Then, there are other considerations which fortify me in the view to which I am inclined. Under Sec. G, recognition is granted to an association by the Central Government, Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 6 enables the Central Government to grant recognition to the association not only to such conditions as may be prescribed or specified but also to specify in such recognition the goods or class of goods with respect to which forward contracts may be entered into between members of the association or through or with any such member. Now, as has been seen, a recognised association is entitled to a Certificate of Registration as of right and even without making an application in that behalf. The recognition specifies the goods or class of goods with respect to which forward contracts may be entered. It cannot then be contemplated that the certificate of Registration granted by the Commission to the recognised association should also specify such goods or class of goods. Again, it will be noticed that whereas Sec. 6 speaks not only of the grant of recognition subject to conditions but also of its being confined to certain commodities, such provision ,is absent in Sec. 14-A which speaks only of conditions contained in the Certificate of Registration. 11. The field in respect of forward contracts other than non-transferable specific delivery contracts is covered completely by Secs. 15 and 17. It seems plain to me that all such forward contracts, no matter what the goods or class of goods to which they relate, are plainly included within those provisions. A submission was made on behalf of the respondents that Sec. 17(1) could be employed only where the Central Government sought to control or prohibit a specific forward contract and not to forward contracts generally in respect of any goods or class of goods. The submission, it seems to me, is without force. The provision, in my opinion, applies generally in respect of all forward contracts (other than non-transferable specific delivery contracts) which relate to any goods or class of goods specified in the notification. The submission, it seems to me, is without force. The provision, in my opinion, applies generally in respect of all forward contracts (other than non-transferable specific delivery contracts) which relate to any goods or class of goods specified in the notification. The words "specified in the notification" relate to "any goods or class of goods" and not to the words "any forward contract". That will appear clearly if regard be had to the scope of Sec. 15(1) and the corresponding necessity of making provision in respect of goods or a" class of goods not specified in the notification under that sub-section. That that was the intention seems to emerge from the reference in Sec. 17(1) to "any goods or class of goods specified in the notification and to which the provision of Sec. 15 have not been made applicable". As regards non-transferable specific delivery contracts, Sec. 18(3) confers upon the Central Government, where it is of opinion that in the interest of the trade or in the public interest it is expedient to regulate and control such contracts in any area, as wide a power as conferred upon it in respect of other forward contracts. The power under Sec. 18 (3) may be exercised in respect of any area and in respect of such goods or class of goods as may be decided upon by the Central Government. 12. I have been unable to gather any necessity for construing in the Commission a power to impose the condition impugned by the petitioner. Such a power is not contained in the express terms of Sec. 14A (1), and no necessary intendment has been proved to warrant its implication. I am of opinion that the condition prohibiting the petitioner from conducting forward trading in any commodity other than that specified in the Certificate of Registration except with the previous approval of the Commission is in excess of the powers of the Commission. 13. I am of opinion that the condition prohibiting the petitioner from conducting forward trading in any commodity other than that specified in the Certificate of Registration except with the previous approval of the Commission is in excess of the powers of the Commission. 13. While I express no opinion upon the validity of the condition in the Certificate of Registration requiring the petitioner to comply with such directions as may be given from time to time by the Commission upon an analysis of the provisions of the Act, I am unable to spell out any power in the Commission, pursuant to that condition, to prohibit the petitioner from trading in non-transferable specific delivery contracts in any commodity without the prior approval of the Commission. 14. Accordingly, in my judgment, the second condition mentioned in the Certificate of Registration granted to the petitioner and the direction contained in the letter dated June 2, 1964 issued by the Commission are a nullity. 15. The respondents point out that the petitioner is not entitled to relief because it accepted the aforesaid condition in the Certificate of Registration and complied with the directive of the Commission requiring it to obtain prior permission before commencing trading "in any new delivery of urhar chuni forward contract." So long as the petitioner continued to conduct forward trading in respect of Arhar Chuni, there was little occasion for it to challenge the imposition of the condition. It was en titled to treat it as a nullity and to proceed in the conduct of its business on the assumption that the condition did not exist. Nothing has been shown to me to indicate that in respect of forward trading in that commodity it sought the previous approval of the Commission. Indeed, the terms in which the condition was couched did not require the petitioner to apply for such permission. Permission was necessary only if the petitioner sought to enter the field of forward trading in other commodities. So far as forward trading in Arhar Chuni contracts was concerned the petitioner ceased to carry on that business after the notification by the Central Government made on June 1, 1964. That is what has been stated by the petitioner in paragraph 22 of the petition and has been accepted as correct by paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit. So far as forward trading in Arhar Chuni contracts was concerned the petitioner ceased to carry on that business after the notification by the Central Government made on June 1, 1964. That is what has been stated by the petitioner in paragraph 22 of the petition and has been accepted as correct by paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit. Subsequently, the petitioner commenced trading in non-transferable specific delivery contracts relating to linseed, but that was done apparently without seeking the prior approval of the Commission and was in fact stopped because of the notification under Sec. 18(3) of the Central Government on December 24, 1964. Subsequently, the petitioner commenced such business in respect of groundnut oil. That was at a time when there was no notification of the Central Government under Sec. 18 (3). Certain proceedings were taken against the petitioner, it seems, at the instance of the Commission in March, 1965 when the Enforcement Police of the Commission raided the premises of the petitioner and took into possession various documents and papers. When such action was taken, the petitioner was entitled to complain of its invalidity and want of legal sanction. In my opinion, the petitioner is not disentitled to relief on the ground put forward by the respondents. 16. It has been admitted between the parties that the Central Government has issued a notification dated August 10, 1965 under Sec. 18(3) applying the provisions of Sec. 15 to non-transferable specific delivery contracts in respect of groundnut oil. The issue of that notification, however, does not, in my opinion, affect the decision of the question which has been raised upon this petition. I am not called upon to consider whether the petitioner can continue to engage in the business relating to non-transferable specific delivery contracts in respect of groundnut oil after that notification. 17. The petition is allowed. The second condition contained in the Certificate of Registration dated December 15, 1962 issued to the petitioner and the direction contained in the letter dated June 2, 1964 from the Forward Markets Commission to the petitioner are quashed. The Forward Markets Commission is restrained from taking any proceedings against the petitioner consequent upon the contravention alleged in respect of the said condition and direction. The petitioner is entitled to its costs, which I assess at Rs. 150/-. Petition allowed.