Judgment L.P.N.Shahdeo, J. 1. All these writ applications have been taken up together for hearing with the consent of the parties as common question of law is involved in all these writ applications. 2. In C.W.J.C. No. 1954/88 (R) the petitioner is Aditya Flour Mills (P) Ltd. of Bokaro Steel City in the district of Dhanbad, in C.W.J.C. No. 163/89 (R) the petitioner is M/s Central Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd. of Ranchi, in C.W.J.C. No. 164/89 (R) the petitioner is M/s Singbhum Flour Mills (P) Ltd. situated at Tatanagar, Jamshedpur, in the district of Singbhum and in Cr.W.J.C. No. 195/88 (R) the petitioner in Basudeo Agrawal who also owns a Atta Chakki whose establishment wag inspected by the Inspector of Police on 17-10-1988 and a criminal case being Chaibasa Sadar P. S. Case No. 120/88 under Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (E. C. Act) was instituted against him as discrepancy was detected and the stock of wheat was found in excess of the prescribed limit. 3. In all these writ applications the petitioners have challenged the Notification No. G. S. R. 42 dated 21-11-1987 which is annexure-8 in C.W.J.C. No. 1954/88(R), annexure 6 in Cr. W. J. C. No. 195/88 (R), annexure 7 and 8 in C.W.J.C. Nos. 163 and 164 of 1989 (R) respectively on the following three grounds: (a) That the aforesaid impugned notification was issued by the respondents without obtaining the prior concurrence of the Central Government as required under Sec. 3 of the E. C. Act and the storage limit of wheat and wheat product has been fixed for B class cities at 10,000 quintals at a time and for C class cities at 5,000 quintals at a time which is invalid. (b) The aforesaid storage limit put by the State Government amounts to unreasonable restriction on the petitioners right to trade and thereby is violative of Articles. 14,16, 19 and 301 of the Constitution of India. (c) The restriction put on the storage limit of the wheat and wheat products is arbitrary and in violation of Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India because it has not taken into consideration the requirements of the Roller Flour Mills and there is no reasonable basis for making a classification between Roller Flour Mills and big Atta Chakkies. 4. 4. The petitioner are running Flour Mills and according to the previous notification they were at liberty to purchase wheat from the open market as well as from the Food Corporation of India. After the Flour Mills wore decontrolled from the purview of the Wheat Roller Flour Mills Licensing and Control Order, 1967, it is claimed by the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 1954/88 (R) that it had expanded its milling capacity from 30,000 Metric Tones to 90,000 Tones per year i.e. 250 M. T. per day which is equivalent to 2500 quintals per day and 62,500 quintals per month after incurring an expenditure of over Rs. 30 lacs. The details of the expenditure done by the petitioner were also intimated to the Central Government. Therefore, it is claimed that the storage limit fixed for the Roller Flour Mills or the big Atta Chakkcies by the State Government under the aforesaid notification is bad in law as the petitioner is unable to carry on the business because the storage limit fixed is not sufficient even for a days milling capacity of the mill and, in fact, the notification has put such unreasonable restriction in an arbitrary manner without taking into consideration the capacity of the Roller Flour Mills per day which will amount to closing down the Flour Mills for want of raw materials. Previously the Food Corporation of India on the Flour Mills were given quotas of one months milling capacity but subsequently that restriction was withdrawn. 5. It is claimed that under Sec. 3 of the E. C. Act the Central Government has been vested with the power to control production, supply and distribution etc. of the essential commodities for securing their equitable distribution at a fir oriel or for securing any essential commodity for the defense of India. Under Sec. 5 of the E.C. Act power has been vested in the Central Govern-meat that it may by notified order direct the power to make order or issue noticing under Sec. 6 in relation to such matter and subject to such condition if any as may be specified in the direction to be exercised by the State Government or such officer or authority subordinate to the State Government as may be specified in the direction. 6. 6. It appears that the Central Government vide Telegram and Telex message sent to the State Government bearing No. 5 (N3) (16)/87-DAR, dated 17-9-1987 had stated that on account of unappreciated brought in the country, the Central Government had no objection if wheat and wheat products are brought under license and stock holding limit as prescribed for wheat and rice. Thu Sex message is Annexure-6 to Writ Application No. 1954 88 (R). In pursuance to the said message again the wheat was incorporated in the schedule under Licenses Unification Order. It appears that, thereafter the State Government, by the impugned notification GSR 42, dated 21-11-1987.has prescribed storage for Ser Bout Mill, and maximum storage limit for B class cities for the Flow Mills as 10,000 quintal, and for C class cities as 5000 quintals. 7. It is claimed that the telex message cannot amount to concurrence of the Central Government. The telex message has not provided for any storage if there for, it is claimed that me Central Government has not concurred for making storage limit in the fashion in which the State Government has issued the impugned notification [vide Annexure-8 to C.W.J.C. No. 1954/88 (R). The notification issued by the State Government Annexure 8 was never sent to the Central Government nor the Central Government had any opportunity to examine it l" such circumstances, there cannot be any concurrence as required under law and the concurrence of the Central Government is necessary before making such a notification. It is, therefore, claimed that the impugned notification is wholly illegal and beyond the competence of the State Government to make such an order. 8. It was also contended that the notification in question has put unreasonable restriction on the Flour Mills to trade and it has not taken into consideration the milling capacity which is noted in the incense itself. It was also contended that this unreasonable restriction has been put in an arbitrary manner Tout making any distinction between a Roller Flour Mill and big Atta Chakkies and small Atta Chakkies. The petitioner has now to procure wheat from the open market and therefore, that takes sometime before the wheat arrives from the other State, to the Flour Mills. It was also contended that this unreasonable restriction has been put in an arbitrary manner Tout making any distinction between a Roller Flour Mill and big Atta Chakkies and small Atta Chakkies. The petitioner has now to procure wheat from the open market and therefore, that takes sometime before the wheat arrives from the other State, to the Flour Mills. If 500U quintals or 10,000 quintals can be storage limit at one particular time, the Flour Mills cannot run efficiently for the whole week because the capacity of the Flout Mills is about 2500 quintals per day. 9. It is also claimed that the storage limit of not only wheat but also the wheat products which is in the process of making wheat product in the Mills have also been taken into consideration and therefore, the petitioners cannot keep the stock of wheat in the Flour Mills for three days requirement. Therefore 5 is arbitrary and amounts to putting hindrance in the running of the industry and in fact, the industry has to close down from time to time which is a clear violation of Article 301 of the Constitution of India and an interference on the petitioners right to trade. It is claimed that the milling capacity of the Flour Mills varies from mill to mill and it is in between 3000 quintals a month to one lac quintals a month and the State Government has fixed a limit of 5000 quintals for all the flour Mills without looking to their capacity size and various other factors and as such, the fixation of storage limit is wholly arbitrary. 10. It is further claimed that the Government has not taken into consideration the capacity of the Roller Flour Mills and the small flour mills whose capacity is 3000 quintals and they can keep in their stock a quantity for two months but the Flour Mills whose capacity is one lac quintals a month cannot keep stock even for two days: of their milling capacity which is nothing but arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as there is no rationable in fixing the limit. 11. The State Government or the respondents have filed counter affidavit in CWJC No. 1954/88 (R). This counter affidavit has been sworn by the Assistant District Supply Officer, Chug in the district of Dhanbad. 11. The State Government or the respondents have filed counter affidavit in CWJC No. 1954/88 (R). This counter affidavit has been sworn by the Assistant District Supply Officer, Chug in the district of Dhanbad. It is claimed that the State Government had made amendments vide Notification No. GSR 42 dated 21-11-1987 in Sub-clauses {a.) and (b) of Clause (1) and (2) of the Storage Limit of Trade Articles under Clause (3) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification \ Order, J984. This amendment was made in view of the instruction and prior concurrence of the Government of India in the Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies (Department of Food) vide their Telex message No. 5 (N3) (16) 87 D & R-1, dated 17-9-1987 fixing the storage limit with regard to Roller Flour Mills in the State of Bihar on account of unprecedented drought and flood in the State and to ensure supply of food grains to the consumers at reasonable prices and to prevent hoarding. It is claimed by the respondents that the storage limits for the Roller Flour Mills and big Atta Chakkies at a time was fixed at ten thousand quintals in B class cities and five thousand quintals in C class cities which is reasonable. The telex message is contained in annexure 6 to CWJC No. 1954/88 (RJ as stated earlier. It is, therefore, claimed that the impugned notification does not suffer from any infirmity and the writ applications are fit to be dismissed. Supplementary affidavit has also been filed by the writ petitioners. 12. Mr. B.P. Rajgarhia appearing in ail the civil writ applications and Mr. P. D. Agrawal appearing in Cr WJC No. 195/88 (R) have argued that the impugned notifications, annexure-8 is bad in law on three grounds: (i) Prior concurrence of the Central Government as required under Secs. 3 and 5 of the E. C. Act was not obtained prior to the issuance of the notification in question and, therefore, impugned notification is illegal for want of concurrence of the Central Government. (ii) The impugned notification puts unreasonable restriction on the petitioners right to trade and, as such, it is bad in law and is invalid. 3 and 5 of the E. C. Act was not obtained prior to the issuance of the notification in question and, therefore, impugned notification is illegal for want of concurrence of the Central Government. (ii) The impugned notification puts unreasonable restriction on the petitioners right to trade and, as such, it is bad in law and is invalid. (iii) The impugned notification is arbitrary, illegal and bad in law in view of the fact that storage limit has been fixed without any rationale or basis and without taking into consideration the capacity of the Roller Flour Mills and big Atta Chakkies which is arbitrary as their milling capacity is quite different and, therefore, the classification made between the Roller Flour Mills and the big Atta Chakkies is arbitrary and illegal. 13. On the other hand. Mr. Narayan Roy, learned G.P. II appearing on behalf of the State respondents has submitted that prior concurrence on the Central Government was obtained and, in fact, the Central Government had given concurrence by the telex message, Annexure-6 and after receiving that telex message the State Government has issued the notification in question fixing the storage limit with regard to the Roller Flour Mills and the big Atta Chakkies fixing storage limit of 10,000 quintals in respect of class cities and 5,000 quintals in respect of C class cities, Therefore, the notification does not suffer for want of concurrence of the Central Government It was also submitted that 100000 quintals for B class cities and 5,000 quintal for C class cities at a time is sufficient and not unreasonable nor it is arbitrary and, therefore, the notification issued is valid in law and in all respects and, therefore, all these writ applications are lit to be dismissed. 14. It should be noted in this connection that the two writ applications, i.e. CWJC Nos. 163 and 164 of 1989 (R) are in respect of B class cities and writ application No. 1954 of 1988(R) is in respect of Q class cities. 15. 14. It should be noted in this connection that the two writ applications, i.e. CWJC Nos. 163 and 164 of 1989 (R) are in respect of B class cities and writ application No. 1954 of 1988(R) is in respect of Q class cities. 15. The first point which falls for consideration and determination in these cases is as to whether the impugned notification, annexure-8, is illegal and invalid for want of concurrence of the Central Government or it is valid in view of the prior concurrence alleged to have been obtained from the Central Government: through the telex message of the Central Government or whether the Central Government has directed for the issuance of such notification for bringing the wheat and wheat products within the purview of Licencing Order and for fixing the storage limit. 16. It is the admitted position that in vie v of the aforesaid telex message (annexure-6j the State of Bihar issued the notification No. GSR 42, dated 21-11-1987 fixing the storage limit for the wholesaler, retail dealers, Roller Flour Mills and the big Atta Chakkies in respect of wheat and wheat products. It is also the admitted position in this case that the State Government is required to obtain prior concurrence of the Central Government under Sec. 3(d) and (f) of the E.C. Act for issuing the impugned notification, aunexure-8. This proposition of law has not been disputed even in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in which they have admitted that prior concurrence of the Central Government is prerequisite for issuance of the notification in question. Therefore, main point for determination in this case is as to whether prior concurrence of the Central Govern/meat was obtained by the State Government for issuance of the impugned notification, anaexure-8, or not which has been challenged in all these writ applications for want of concurrence. 17. Therefore, it has to be decided first as to what the word concurrence means. 17. Therefore, it has to be decided first as to what the word concurrence means. The word concurrence means the act of concurring agreement, accord, co-operation or combination, The word concurrence, therefore, presupposes existence of some scheme, some proposal or something in writing of a State Government which is required to be examined by the Central Government for agreeing or differing with the proposed scheme or the proposal which is to be issued under the provisions of the E. C. Act under the delegated powers of the Central Government to the State Government under Sec. 5 of the E.C. Act. 18. In these cases learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has relied upon annexure 6 stating that the telex message sent by the Central Government amounts to concurrence. The telex message, annexure-6, only indicates as follows: Stop on account of unprecedented drought in the country ensuring supply of food grains to consumers at reasonable prices necessary stop apart from minimizing procurement regulatory measures to intensify food grains dehorning need to be taken stop Central Government has no objection if wheat and wheat products are brought under Licensing and Stock Holding limits are prescribed for wheat and rice stop this communication be deemed the concurrence of Central Government to issue or amend relevant orders stop kindly intimate action taken urgently-Khadya Vibhag. This shows that in substance, the Central Government had no objection if wheat and wheat, products are brought under Licensing and Stock Holding. Limits. We are concerned only with wheat and wheat products in respect of the impugned notification, annexure-8. We are not concerned with any other food-grains or any other item included under that notification. The telex message also states that it should be deemed that these have been concurrence of the Central Government to issue or amend the relevant orders. 19 The first impression that arises out of this communication of the Central Government passed on to the States is that the Central Government in view of the brought situation had advised the State Governments to bring wheat and wheat products within the scope for issuing license and prescribing holding limits of wheat and wheat products? Under the provisions of the Unification Order. Under the provisions of the Unification Order. This telex message only communicates the idea of the Central Government that the State Governments can bring suitable amendment or issue suitable notification for bringing the wheat and wheat products within the licensing capacity and holding storage limits. This telex message has only given a green signal to make necessary amendment in that, orders but it has not given a blanket authority on the State Governments; to issue any notification or any order of their own choice without being subjected to the scrutiny, examination or agreement of the Central Government. This message, therefore, requires that the State Government, should submit a proposal on scheme or copy of the notification through which they want to amend the relevant provisions of the Unification Order issued under the E.C. Act for which prior concurrence or consent of Central Government was an essential requirement. 20. If there was no proposal, no scheme or anything in writing, then it was very difficult for the Central Government to apply its mind to the proposal or the scheme mooted out by the State Government to carry out the direction of the Central Government through that telex message, annexure-6. This telex message has not prescribed any storage limit for a Roller Flour Mills, small or big Atta Chakkies and all these factors should be taken into consideration for fixing such storage limit. Therefore any storage limit which is to be fixed for Roller Flour Mills, big Atta Chakkies or small Atta Chakkies must be placed before the Central Government for its appreciation, examination and application of mind regarding the desirability of issuing such a notification keeping in view the requirement of the situation then prevailing. It has not given any arbitrary authority to the State Governments to fix in any arbitrary manner the storage limit for Roller flour Mills on big Atta Coakkies or small Atta Chakkies without taking into consideration their monthly requirement or their monthly capacity. The Central Government is also required to examine the proposed notification in keeping in view the smooth flow of essential commodities in other States and its effect likely to be produced on the trade. 21. The Central Government is also required to examine the proposed notification in keeping in view the smooth flow of essential commodities in other States and its effect likely to be produced on the trade. 21. In this view of the matter, on close scrutiny and examination of all matted and factors connected therewith, I am satisfied that the telex message sent by the Central Government cannot be treated or deemed to be concurrence of the Central Government for issuance of the notification of the nature as contained in ancexure-8 fixing storage limits for different nature of machineries used for trade of wheat and wheat products, if there was any scheme, any proposal or if any of them was not before the Central Government, the Central Government was not in a position to examine it and apply its mind to all its details, its ramification, extent and effect which was likely to produce on the trade of wheat in any particular area or the State. Therefore, the requirement was that the State Government should submit a scheme or proposed notification for concurrence of the Central Government and if the Central Government had agreed to that notification, the scheme or proposal, that could have been issued in valid manner by any State Government and that having not been done, the notification in question must be held to be invalid for want of valid concurrence. 22. It appears that under similar circumstance in cases reported in AIR 1973 Pat 419 and AIR 1986, MP 9.the Bihar Rice and Paddy Procurement Order and Madhya Pradesh Essential Commodities (Exhibition and Price and Price Control) Order, 1977 were held to be invalid for want of necessary concurrence of the Central Government, This show that either for issuing any notification under Sec. 3 of the E.C. Act or deleting any of the provisions of the Unification Order, prior concurrence of the Central Government is necessary and if that not done, that notification cannot sustain in law. 23. In these cases the impugned notification annesure-8 in CWJC No. 1954/88(R) was not subject to any examination by the Central Government or its authority nor the Central Government had seen it before it was issued by the Bihar Government. Without seeing the proposal, or the copy of the proposed notification there cannot be any question of giving any concurrence or agreeing with the proposal by the Central Government. Without seeing the proposal, or the copy of the proposed notification there cannot be any question of giving any concurrence or agreeing with the proposal by the Central Government. Therefore, the notification in question was never examined by the Central Government for giving concurrence or agreeing with the same and, as such this notification, annexure 8, ruled by the State Government is beyond its Legislative competence and must be held to be invalid for want of necessary concurrence of the Central Government and on that ground itself this notification is illegal and has no force. 24. The next argument is that the notification puts unreasonable restriction and, therefore, it is arbitrary, illegal and bad in law. Unreasonableness, arbitrariness and illegality are inter-connected matters and, therefore, they are required to be taken up together. It is the admitted position that the Constitution has given right to free trade to a citizen under Article 301 of the Constitution of India. If unreasonable and arbitrary restrictions are placed in exercise of that right, such unreasonable restrictions must be deemed to be violative of Articles 14,16 and 19 of the Constitution. But the test of reasonableness is to be determined on consideration of various factors, like the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restriction imposed the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing conditions at the time, should all enter into the judicial verdict. Therefore, the question of reasonableness cannot be static and it roust be changing in nature to suit the time, place and requirement of the situation. The test of reasonableness was examined by five judges of the Supreme Court in a case -- -The State of Madras V/s. V.G. Row, Similar view was expressed in another ruling of the Delhi High Court -- -Sudh Vanaspati Ltd. V/s. Union of India. 25. In an another ruling -- -Krishna Lal Praveen Kumar and Ors. V/s. State of Rajasthan and Ors., it was held that Wheat Control Order does not impose unreasonable restriction on freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse between one State and another and the same having been issued with prior concurrence of the Central Government, is not open to challenge. 25. In an another ruling -- -Krishna Lal Praveen Kumar and Ors. V/s. State of Rajasthan and Ors., it was held that Wheat Control Order does not impose unreasonable restriction on freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse between one State and another and the same having been issued with prior concurrence of the Central Government, is not open to challenge. In this case the maximum storage limit of wheat was fixed at 200 quintals to be possessed by a dealer at any time which was designed to prevent hoarding of food grains and was held to be reasonable restriction within the mean-in of Article 19(6) of the Constitution. 26. Therefore, we have to examine the effect of the notification, its object, purpose and the extent of and effect of proportion which the notification is likely to produce on the trade of the petitioners. It is undisputed position in this case by the State that the petitioner, Aditya Flour Mills Ltd. is a Roller Flour Mill and it was earlier governed by the Roller Flour Mills Licensing Order 1967 in which one months licensing capacity was fixed for the storage hunt of the Roller Flour Mills and that notification is annexure 2 which says that the Government had permitted them to have in stock wheat and wheat products not exceeding the monthly licensed milling capacity of wheat of Roller Flour Mill as specified in their respective licences issued under the Wheat Roller Flour Mills (Licensing and Control) Order. 1957. Annexure 1 says in detail the licensing capacity of that Roller Flour Mill which is 250 M.T. per day which comes to 2500 quintals per day. This fact has been asserted also in paragraph 39 of the writ application and, therefore, it is claimed that it is impossible for the petitioner i.e. Aditya Flour Mills Ltd to run its industry on such a meager stock as he has expanded his milling capacity after making huge investment of about 31 lacs of rupees. This shows that the petitioner can keep or wheat products only for two days requirement because by the time the wheat products are lifted by some other agency, the petitioner cannot be in a position to store wheat for crushing or converting it into wheat products by bringing wheat from outside or by purchasing it from the open market. This shows that the petitioner can keep or wheat products only for two days requirement because by the time the wheat products are lifted by some other agency, the petitioner cannot be in a position to store wheat for crushing or converting it into wheat products by bringing wheat from outside or by purchasing it from the open market. The restriction therefore, imposed on the working of the Roller Flour Mill practically puts a restriction and hindrance in its smooth working which may lead to closure of the Mill. 27. When the State Government had accepted the earlier position that such type of Roller Flour Mills can maintain stock in their Mills for one month of their licensing capacity, there seems to be no reasonable basis for reducing it to keep the stock position only for two days which means, practically the Mill is likely to be closed or likely to remain idle unless and until wheat is brought from outside and bringing wheat from outside is not free from various restrictions and is not in smooth flow to the Mill. In this circumstance, fixing of storage limit for a Roller Flour Mill up to a stock of 5000 quintals or 10,000 at a B class city when their milling capacity is one lac tones which fact is an undisputed one, appears to be wholly unreasonable and, in fact, if such restriction is carried out, to its logical conclusion, will on an ultimate analysis, mean the closure of the Roller Mill. The Government should have fixed the storage limit by the notification at least giving them permission to store wheat unto two weeks of their milling capacity which having not been done, amounts to unreasonable restriction put on the trade of the petitioner and. as such, it is volative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 28. In this connection yet another matter to be taken note of is that the big flourmills and big Atta Chakkies have been keep in the same category which is not a reasonable classification. Atta Chakkies cannot be equated with the Roller Flour Mills. It is undisputed position in this case that the petitioner. Aditya Flour Mills Ltd. has about one lac quintals milling capacity in a month whereas the Atta Chakkies cannot come to that extent. Atta Chakkies cannot be equated with the Roller Flour Mills. It is undisputed position in this case that the petitioner. Aditya Flour Mills Ltd. has about one lac quintals milling capacity in a month whereas the Atta Chakkies cannot come to that extent. For Atta Chakkies 5,000 or 10,0(0 quintals may be adequate for their trade which may not be unreasonable but for a Roller Flour Mill, it will be quite unreasonable. Therefore, putting the Atta Coakkies and the Roller Flour Mills in the same limitation of storage limit, appears to be arbitrary, without any valid basis and without taking into consideration the requirement of such Roller Flour Mills and Atta Chakkies. 29. It cannot be lost sight of the situation that wheat product has increased in our country and the same was decontrolled. The drought situation which was prevailing in 1987, has since ceased and, as such, there seems to be necessity of re-appraisal of the whole matter at the highest level by the Government for taking into consideration all the aspects of the matter involved and for deciding about the fixation of storage limit of wheat and wheat products. No doubt, the underlying idea of notification may be a pious one to prevent hoarding and to ensure smooth supply of wheat and wheat products to the consumers through Public Distribution System but it is equally necessary that wheat products should come to the Public Distribution System through the factory and the factories should not be kept idle otherwise, ultimately it is likely to affect the Public Distribution System itself and the public for whose benefit such notification was issued. Therefore, it is also equally important matter and requires dispassionate consideration with regard to the wheat industry so that such industries should work in their full capacities and their normal supply of wheat and wheat products to the public or to the Public Distribution System for the benefit of the Public at large, may not be interrupted, creating artificial scarcity. If the petitioners are not allowed to work at their full capacity, it will ultimately affect the interest of the public and the purpose for which the notification was issued, may be defeated. In this view of the matter also the notification issued by the State Government, apart from the fact that it is invalid, requires a fresh consideration. 30. If the petitioners are not allowed to work at their full capacity, it will ultimately affect the interest of the public and the purpose for which the notification was issued, may be defeated. In this view of the matter also the notification issued by the State Government, apart from the fact that it is invalid, requires a fresh consideration. 30. In the result for the reasons stated above all the four writ applications are allowed. The impugned notification No. G.S.R. 42, dated 21-11-1987 as contained in annexure-8 to C.W.J.C. No. 1954 of 1988(R), annexure-6 to Cr W.J.C. No. 195 of 1988(R), annexures-7 and 6 to C.W.J.C. Nos. 163 and 164 of 1989 (R) respectively are held to be invalid and are quashed so far storage limit of wheat and wheat products are concerned. Consequently, the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner in Cr.W.J.C. No. 195/88(R) is also quashed.