JUDGMENT Mathur, J. - This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by Messrs Jai Narain Hanuman Bux and five others for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Notification No. H 614 XXI-B-1424 (14/ 1968 dated 28-1-1960, in so far as it relates to Rice, Gur, Rab and Deshi Shakar, for a writ of mandamus to prohibit the respondents from enforcing the provisions of U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, and U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Niyamavali, 1965 (to be referred hereinafter as the Rules) or Rule 76 of the said Niyamavali, in case validity of the Act and the Rules is upheld : 2. Petitioners nos. 1 to 4 claim to be dealers in the specified agricultural produce, while petitioners nos. 5 and 6 assert themselves to be producers, though a contrary inference can be drawn from the fact that these petitioners did not care to file a rejoinder-affidavit to challenge the assertions contained in the counter-affidavit. It was mentioned in the counter-affidavit that petitioner no. 5 had applied for a licence for sale of specified agricultural produce in the Market Area, while petitioner no. 6 was a village trader. In the circumstances, any point which a producer could raise cannot be permitted to be raised in the writ petition. Further, these two petitioners shall also be treated as business-men having interest in the purchase and sale of goods from producers. 3. The validity of U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, has been upheld by this Court in numerous cases. There exists no ground for reconsideration of these decisions. 4. The learned Advocate for the petitioners has raised two points before me : firstly, that rule 76 (1) of the Rules is beyond the rule-making power of the State Government, and secondly that this sub-rule places an unreasonable restriction in the exercise of fundamental rights to carry on any business or trade. The second point was considered in Hari Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, S.A. No. 468 of 468 decided on 16.09.1969. The restriction imposed was not regarded to be unreasonable. There is no reason for me to differ from this opinion; hence the second point must be decided against the petitioners. 5. The first point, namely, rule 76 (1) being beyond the rule-making power of State Government, was not raised in the special appeal. The restriction imposed was not regarded to be unreasonable. There is no reason for me to differ from this opinion; hence the second point must be decided against the petitioners. 5. The first point, namely, rule 76 (1) being beyond the rule-making power of State Government, was not raised in the special appeal. It is consequently necessary for me to express my opinion on this point. 6. The material provisions of the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam are Sections 9, 10 and 40.. Section 9 (1) provides : "As from the date of declaration of an area as Market Area no Local Body or other person shall, within the Market Area, set up, establish or continue, or allow to be set up, established or continued, any place for the sale, purchase, storage, weighment or processing of the specified agricultural produce, except under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted by the Committee concerned, anything to the contrary contained in any other law, custom, usage or agreement notwithstanding : Provided that the provisions of this sub-Sec. shall not apply to a producer in respect of agricultural produce produced, reared, caught or processed by him or to any person who purchases or stores and agricultural produce for his domestic consumption." It is said that the licence never contained a condition that there can be no purchase of specified agricultural produce except in an auction conducted by the Committee. Even if such a condition existed in the licence, it shall be invalid in case rule 76 (1) is held to be beyond the rule-making power of the State Government. 7. Section 10 prohibits the levy of trade charges other than those prescribed by rules or bye-laws. Section 40 details the rule-making power of the State Government. Sub-Sec. (1) thereof is a general provision enabling the State Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. Sub-Sec. (2) thereof prescribes some of the matters on which the State Government can make rules. The material clauses of the sub-section are clauses (xix) and (xxvii). Clause (xix) runs as below : "the manner in which the sale or auction of the specified agricultural produce shall be conducted and bids made and accepted in the Market Area." The material part of clause (xxvii) is the time, place and manner of ............. sale, purchase ............ ....and mode of payments." 8. Clause (xix) runs as below : "the manner in which the sale or auction of the specified agricultural produce shall be conducted and bids made and accepted in the Market Area." The material part of clause (xxvii) is the time, place and manner of ............. sale, purchase ............ ....and mode of payments." 8. The term sale has been defined in Section 2 (f) of the Act to include barter or deposit of goods by way of pledge or as security for the amount received as advance. The definition being illustrative does not bar other modes of sale. private or by auction, conducted by or with the consent of the producer. Consequently, clause (xix) of Section 40 (2) of the Act cannot enable the State Government to prohibit sale of specified agricultural produce other than by auction. The clause merely empowers the State Government to make a rule laying down the manner in which the sale or auction shall be conducted, bids made and accepted in the Market Area. The material part of clause (xxvii) also leads to the some inference. 9. The point for consideration is what is meant by the expression "the manner in which" used in clause (xix) and the expression "manner of" used in clause (xxvii). Does it mean that only the mode of sale or auction can be prescribed or that the State Government has the power to restrict the sale and purchase of goods by prescribing that there can be no sale by private negotiation and there shall be sale at auction only ? 10. The manner or mode of sale merely means how the sale shall be conducted or negotiated and in what circumstances the sale transaction shall be complete and enforceable, and that a sale cannot take place. Consequently, under both these clauses the State Government could not prohibit the sale of the specified agricultural produce except by auction, all the more, when sale as defined in the Act means all kinds of transactions amounting to sale and the terms also includes barter or pawning of goods. 11. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Sales Tax Officer Ponkunnam v. K. I. Abrahan. Vol. 20 (1967) S.T.C. 367 can be made applicable to the facts of the instant case. 11. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Sales Tax Officer Ponkunnam v. K. I. Abrahan. Vol. 20 (1967) S.T.C. 367 can be made applicable to the facts of the instant case. Therein it was held that the expression "in the prescribed manner" cannot include the time limit in the submission of the Return which can always be furnished within a reasonable time. Similarly, in Sant Saran Lal v. Parsramz Sahu, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1852 the expression "in the prescribed form". was held not to include the upper limit of the lands to be advanced. 12. Considering that the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Nandi Adhiniyam, 1964, does not prohibit the purchase of specified agricultural produce by private transactions other than by auction, nor does Section 40 thereof empower the State Government to make rules prohibiting the sale and purchase of such produce except by open auction, rule 76 (1) of the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Niyamavali, 1965 is beyond the rule-making power of the State Government and is invalid on this ground. The proviso to the sub-rule is not invalid; but when the main provision is being struck down, the proviso by itself cannot be retained being not severable. A proviso is always an exception to the rule and when the main rule is struck down, the proviso cannot stand by itself. 13. The writ petition is hereby allowed and rule 76 (1) of the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Niyamavali, 1965, is declared invalid and unenforceable. The respondents are hereby directed not to enforce this sub-rule. Costs easy. Stay order is vacated.