Judgment Birendra Prasad Singh, R. P. Mandal, JJ. 1. By this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings in Gaya kotwali P. S. Case No.22 (12)/76. 2. The only point for consideration is as to whether the Bihar Essential articles (Display of Prices and Stocks) Order, 1975, is ultra vires the provisions of the Defence of India Rules, 1971. 3. The Bihar Essential Articles (Display of Prices and Stocks) Order, 1975 (hereinafter called as "the Order") was made by the Governor of Bihar in exercise of the powers conferred by rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971. This order was made for the maintenance and increase of supplies and services essential to the life of the community and for securing the equitable distribution and availability of any article or thing at fair prices. The order provides for regulating the supply and distribution and the use and consumption of articles and things. Under Clause 3 of the Order, every dealer, before commencement of his business on any day, is required to display conspicuously at place near the entrance to his place of business premises the following : (a) A list of prices of all articles mentioned in Schedule I. (b) The price of every article mentioned is Schedule II which he deals in by affixing a lable or a price tag to each articles, or by putting a price placed where the article is stored or kept for sale unless the price of the article is already printed on the article itself, or its container or packet or wrapper. (c) List of prices of any article mentioned in Schedule II as may be specified from time to time by the Commissioner or the District magistrate as the case may be : provided that numerals to be used in the list of prices shall be either in Devanagri form or in the international form of Indian numerals. (c) List of prices of any article mentioned in Schedule II as may be specified from time to time by the Commissioner or the District magistrate as the case may be : provided that numerals to be used in the list of prices shall be either in Devanagri form or in the international form of Indian numerals. Clause 4 of the order provides that no dealer shall - (a) sell to any person any article mentioned in the Schedules I and II at a price higher than that displayed in accordance with clause (3) ; (b) refuse to sell such articles to any person at a price so specified or marked ; (c) sell any article to any person without issuing a cash memo or a bill and without keeping a duplicate copy of such cash memo or bill as the case may be" . 4 It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that this Order which has essentially been made for controlling the prices or rates at which any foodstuffs, including oil-seeds and edible oils may be bought and sold has been made by the Scale Government without the prior concurrence of the Central Government. Rule 114 (4) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971, has been referred to in this connection, which reads as under : "4. Rule 114 (4) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971, has been referred to in this connection, which reads as under : "4. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (2) and (3), an order under these sub-rules for regulating by licences, permits or otherwise the movement or transport of any foodstuffs, including edible oil seeds and edible oils, or for controlling the prices or rates at which any such foodstuffs may be bought or sold, shall not be made by the State Government except with the prior concurrence of the central Government:" Rule 114 (2) authorises the Central Government or the State Government to moke an order for regulating or prohibiting the production, manufacture, supply and distribution, use and consumption of article or things and trade and commerce therein or for preventing any corrupt practice or abuse of authority in respect of any such matter if the Central Government or the State government is of opinfon that it is necessary or expedient so to do for securing the defence of India and Civil defence, the efficient conduct of military operations or the maintenance or increase of supplies and services essential to the life of the community or for securing the equitable distribution and availability of any article or thing at fair prices. Such an order can be made in respect of various things including the controlling of prices or rates at which any articles or things of any discription whatsoever may be sold or hired or for relaxing any maximum or minimum limits otherwise imposed on such prices or rates (See Rule 114 (3) (h ). Rule 114 (4), however, makes certain exceptions. If such an order is made by the State Government for regulating by licences; permits or otherwise the movement or transport of any foodstuffs, including edibie oil seeds and edible oils, or for controlling the prices or rates at which any such foodstuffs may be bought, the concurrence of the Central Government has got to be taken the admitted position in this case is that before making this order the concurrence of the Central Government was not taken. 5 Mr. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents-State, however, submitted that this order only regulates the supply and distribution of articles and things does not control the price of such commodities and, therefore, prior concurrence of the Central Government was not necessary. 5 Mr. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents-State, however, submitted that this order only regulates the supply and distribution of articles and things does not control the price of such commodities and, therefore, prior concurrence of the Central Government was not necessary. He relied upon a Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of the State of Madhya Pradesh V/s. Chainkaran (1974 Criminal Law Journal 1110 ). In that case it was held that Madhya Pradesh Commodities Price Display Order, 1971, left the dealer free to fix up price of an article as he liked and compelled him only to supply the article to any one who offered that price. The said order was thus only regulatory and did not control the price of the commodities and, therefore, did not fall within the purview of sub-rule (4) of Rule 114 of the defence of India Rules. With great respect, it is not possible for us to agree with the view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. 6. In the case of A. K. Abdulla, Kasaragod V/s. State of Kerala and another (AIR 1973 Kerala 242) a different view was taken in respect of the Kerala Cycle tyres and Tubes (Declaration of Stocks and Maintenance of Accounts) Order 1966. Some of the clauses of that order related to the price list to be displayed at places of business. Any provisions for display of prices is at least incidental and supplementry to the matter covered by Clause (3) and 4 of the Order in the present case. It will be meaningless to ask the dealer to display a list of prices of any article if it is not for the purpose of controlling the prices or rates at which that article may be bought or sold. A purchaser can at least force the dealer to sell the article to him at the price which has been displayed under this order. In the case of A. K. Abdulla (supra), it was held that the display of prices will at least have an indirect effect of controlling the prices in that it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the dealer to sell at prices higher than that displayed. A display of prices will, therefore, have a controlling effect oil the prices. With great respect, we agree with the view taken by the Kerala High court. A display of prices will, therefore, have a controlling effect oil the prices. With great respect, we agree with the view taken by the Kerala High court. This being the position we are constrained to hold that the Bihar essential Articles (Display of Prices and Stocks) Order, 1975, in so far as it relates to foodstuffs including edible oilseeds and edible oils are concerned, is ultra vires the provisions of Rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971, inasmuch as no prior concurrence of the Central Government was taken. The said order to that extent is, therefore, struck down. 7. The petitioner in this case is a wholesale dealer of edible oils. On the basis of a written report submitted by the Supply Inspector, Gaya (Respondent no.2) to the Officer-in-charge of the Gaya Kotwali Police Station, Gaya (Respondent No.4) on 29-12-1976, a case was instituted against the I petitioner being Gaya Kotwali P. S. Case No.22 (12)/76 under Rule 114 of the Defence of india Rules for the alleged violation of the display order. It is obvious that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for any alleged violation of an invalid order. 8. In the result, this application is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in Gaya Kotwali Police Station Case No.22 (12)/76 is hereby quashed. Application dismissed.