JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, J. - The Petitioners, .who are traders in mohua flower and holders of permit issued under the Orissa Excise (Mohua Flowers) Rules, 1976 by the prescribed authority for the purpose, have challenged the vires of an office order bearing No. 2628 dated 28th April, 1988 issued by the Superintendent of Excise, Ganjam as per Annexure-5 as contrary to the Rules and the provisions of the Constitution of India. By the order, the permit holders of the district of Ganjam have been required, while going for import from outside the district to obtain written permission from the District Office and produce the same before the concerned authority of/exporting District and other formalities have also been prescribed thereunder. The Petitioners have averred that the rules were framed under the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915. Under Rule 3. a permit holder can collect mohua flower subject to the limit of retail sale fixed by the Board u/s 5 and subject to restriction imposed by the rules for storage or possession for any purpose or for its sale import export and transport. Chapter III.provides for import of mohua flowers from outside the State vide Rules 6, 7 and 8 and for export of mohua flowers to a place outside the State vide Rules 9 and 10. Rule 11, prior to the amendment, which came into force with effect from 11-5-1976 prescribed that Rules 6 to 8 relating to import of mohua flowers should mutatis mutandis apply to the transport of mohua flower inside the State, etc.. But the said rule was amended and it reads as hereunder: 11. There shall be no restriction for transport of mohua flower inside the State. 2. The Petitioners contend that having regard to the charge of law since 11-5-1976 no restriction could- be imposed by any authority on movement of mohua flower, inside the State. The requirement under the office order issued by the Superintendent of Excise, Ganjam as per Annexure-5 requiring the trader to obtain-written permission from the District Office, is contrary to the freedom granted under Rule 11. 3. The requirement under the office order issued by the Superintendent of Excise, Ganjam as per Annexure-5 requiring the trader to obtain-written permission from the District Office, is contrary to the freedom granted under Rule 11. 3. Rule 11 is a statutory rule and especially when restrictions on transport of mohua flower inside the State were abolished by the amendment at Rule 11, as aforesaid, It was not open to the Superintendent of Excise because of certain difficulties faced or for altruistic purpose, to act in the face of the rule. Under the statute and the rules the trader has got a right to transport mohua flower inside the State without any restriction. Annexure-5, which places restriction, is therefore contrary to Rule 11 and has to be quashed. The legal right of the Petitioners could not be affected except by operation of law. Executive action; especially when it is contrary to the statutory rule, restricting the rights of the Petitioners without authority of law is contrary to Rule .11 and is ultra vires. We, therefore, quash annexure-5. 4. In the result, the writ application is allowed. But in the circumstances, there would be no order as to costs. S.C. Mohapatra, J. 5. I agree. Final Result : Allowed