Honble RAJENDRA SAXENA, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Association (shortly Association) having its members, whose names find mention in Schedule A and who carry on the business of various trade articles including sugar in the city of Udaipur. The Association has sought the relief in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate order or direction prohibiting the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Udaipur (shortly K.U.M. S.) (respondent No. 2) from in any manner insisting upto its members to confine their trading activity in sugar to the principal Market Yard at Udaipur only and from interfering in their carrying on trade in sugar at any place other than the said Principal Market Yard. The Association has also prayed that the District Supply Officer, Udaipur (respondent No. 3) be prohibited from interfering with the carrying on the business in sugar by its members in the guise of communication like Annexure -2 or otherwise so long as they carry on their business complying with the other restricting legislation enacted under and in accordance with the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1954. 2. The facts of this case are not in dispute. The State Government by its Notification No. F. 10 (2) Agri./ Gr. II/75 dated 21.4.1977 issued under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to, the Act) as declared the market area including the Municipal limits of Udaipur for the purposes of the said Act in respect of or any of the kinds of agricultural produce specified in the Schedule. The State Government under Section 6 of the Act also established K.U.M.S., Udaipur for the said market area. This is also not in dispute that vide Government Notification No. S.O. 153 dated 24.10.1981 (Annex. R2/2) under Section 5(2) of the Act, a principal market yard located at the newly constructed Krishi Upaj Mandi in Hiren Magri, Udaipur was established. The members of the Association have been granted licences by the K.U.M.S., Udaipur under Rule 69/72 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1963 (in short, the Rules of 1963) read with Sec. 14 of the Act for carrying on their business as traders in agricultural produce. The parties are also at common ground that the State Government has notified sugar as an agricultural produce and same has been included in the Schedule appended with the Act. 3. The parties are also at common ground that the State Government has notified sugar as an agricultural produce and same has been included in the Schedule appended with the Act. 3. The case of the Association is that the sugar is a manufactured article and subjected to a big net work of a control, restriction, regulation etc imposed by various legislations, orders, directions, circulars, etc. issued from time to time by the Central Government and/or State Government. Such restrictions include the sequence with respect to manufacture, distribution, sale transportation, possession, storage, price to be charged at different levels and so on. It is the case of the Association that as per [Explanation appended to Rule 64(1) of the Rules, 1963, it is not at all necessary for its members to carry on their trade and business in respect of sugar and to under take their business activities like purchase or sale of sugar in the Principal Market Yard or Sub-Market Yard only and thereby make sugar pass through the Principal Market Yard. The Association has urged that in view of numerous other restrictions imposed by various Orders and Circulars issued under other controlling legislations like Essential Commodities Act, etc., it is neither possible nor feasible to carry on the business of sugar in the Principal Market Yard. It has been contended that members of the Association are at present carrying on their business of sugar in Dhan Mandi, Udaipur and that since the carrying on of the business of sugar in Dhan Mandi, Udaipur is not palatable to the K.U.M.S. it has a feeling that its Principal Market Yard is not properly functioning due to insignificant inflow of agricultural produce therein. Therefore, the K.U.M.S. from time to time rather repeatedly and persistently is making efforts to pressurise and coerce various sugar traders to stop trading in Dhan Mandi and to shift their sugar trading activities in the Principal Market Yard despite the fact that in the Principal Market Yard no adequate accommodation and facilities have been provided. The K.U.M.S. has also issued notices dated 7.1.1992, 4.2.1992 and 28.5.1992 (Annex. 1) and directed the members of the Association to shift their trading activities in sugar in the Principal Market Yard and even threatened to cancel their licences issued under the Act. It is alleged that in the same sequence the respondent No. 3 has also issued notices dated 4/5.7.1992 (Annex. 1) and directed the members of the Association to shift their trading activities in sugar in the Principal Market Yard and even threatened to cancel their licences issued under the Act. It is alleged that in the same sequence the respondent No. 3 has also issued notices dated 4/5.7.1992 (Annex. 2) to the members of the Association to show cause as to why licences issued in their favour under the Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing & Controlling) Order, 198) (briefly, the Order of 1980) for carrying on their business in sugar be not cancelled for storing sugar at places other than those mentioned in the licences including the godowns in the Principal Market Yard (Krishi Mandi) and thus violating the condition No. 11 of the said licences. According to the Association, the respondent No. 3 has no role to play in the nutter of provisions of the Act and as such the notices like Annexure-2 issued by him are wholly unauthorised and without jurisdiction. It has been asserted by the Association that as per provisions of Rule 64 read with Its Explanation of the Rules of 1963, it is not at all necessary for its members to bring the sugar in the Principal Market Yard or Sub-Market Yard and to carry on their trading business in sugar in the Principal Market Yard only. More-over it is practically not possible and that at the same it will involve huge expenditure on transportation of the sugar in the Principal Market Yard. The Association has further contended that notices like Annexure-1 issued by the K.U.M.S. will also defeat the objects of the Act and as such those deserve to be quashed. It has also been urged by the Association that the said actions of respondents No. 2& 3 clearly tantamount in restricting its members liberty to carry on trade and commerce and offend their fundamental right enshrined under Article 19 read with 300-A of the Constitution of India. Hence this writ petition. 4. This Court vide its ad-interim order dated 24.8.1992 directed that the status quo be maintained regarding carrying on the business of selling and purchasing of the sugar by the members of Association as was continuing on that date. The respondents were restrained from insisting the members of Association to shift their trading activities in sugar in the Principal Market Yard, Udaipur. The respondents were restrained from insisting the members of Association to shift their trading activities in sugar in the Principal Market Yard, Udaipur. The members of Association were also directed to continue paying the Mandi fees in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules of 1963. 5. The respondent No. 2 filed an application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution for vacation of the said interim order and also filed a detailed reply to the writ petition therein. It has been alleged on behalf of the K.U.M.S. that the members of the Association have been granted licences under section 14 of the Act, to carry on their trading activities in notified agricultural produse in the Principal Market Yard, where about 234 shops/godowns have already been constructed and good number of more shops/godowns in the Principal Market Yard and that they have already been allotted shops/godowns and that they are carrying on their trade there. The remaining members of the Association are also occupation of shops/godowns and that they have also been favoured with new shops/godowns in the Principal Market Yard. It is the case of K.U.M.S. that Section 4(3) of the Act clearly prohibits trading in notified agricultural produce beyond the limits of principal market yard and that rule 64 of the Rules, 1963 specifically lays down that all the notified agricultural produce brought into the market or produced or processed in the market proper shall pass through the Principal Market Yard or Sub-Market Yard and shall not be sold at any other place within the market proper. It has been contended by the K.U.M.S. that the Explana-tion appended to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 64 simply clarifies hat processed agricultural produce shall include all the notified agricultural produce processed in the market, but not a manufactured produce Therefore sugar is not exempted from making it pass through the Principal Market Yard or Sub Market Yard and that it can not be sold at any other place within the market proper. It has been alleged that since the Association has not challenged the vires of the provisions of Section 4 (3) of the Act or Rule 64 of Rules, 1963 its members are not entitled to trade in sugar at any other place except the Principal Market Yard and as such the issuance of notice like Annex.1 by the K.U.M.S. is perfectly legal, justified and not without Jurisdiction. The K.U.M.S. has also taken certain legal objections that some members of the Association had earlier filed regular Civil Suits in the Civil Court, Udaipur for seeking the relief of perpetual injunction against the respondents in this regard which have been dismissed in default or with drawn with liberty to file fresh Smt. that the Association is not registered one and that no legal or fundamental right of its members has been violated and therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. 6. Respondent No. 3 in his return has hotly contested this writ petition and asserted that as per terms and condition No. 11 of the licence issued under the provisions of Order of 1980, the licencee shall, in case when he functions in a regulated market, abide by such instructions relating to his business as are given by the marketing authority having jurisdiction, and that there is another term & condition that the licence shall not carry on the business and store the commodity at a place other than mentioned in the said licence. Respondent No. 3 has further asserted that since the members of th Associa-tion are not carrying on their business of sugar at the places mentioned in the licences issued in their favour and carrying on the same at other places and no intimations regarding change of addresses were given by them, he being the licensing authority is fully competent to initiate action against them for the violation of said conditions and to cancel or refuse to renew their licences Hence notices like Annex. 2 are not without jurisdiction and illegal. Repon-dent No. 3 has contended that under the provisions of the Order of 1980, appeal & revision can be filed by the aggrieved person. Hence the Association has an aternate and efficacious remedy and, therefore, this writ petition is maintainable against him. 7. 2 are not without jurisdiction and illegal. Repon-dent No. 3 has contended that under the provisions of the Order of 1980, appeal & revision can be filed by the aggrieved person. Hence the Association has an aternate and efficacious remedy and, therefore, this writ petition is maintainable against him. 7. The Association in its rejoinder has retiterated that the respondent No. 2 has no legal authority to insist upon its members to confine their trading activity in sugar to the Principle Market Yard only and that factum of allotment of shops/godowns in favour of its members and further constructions under taken by the K.U.M.S. as also the services rendered by it are wholly irrelevant consideration for resolving this controversy. The Association has maintained that sugar being a manufactured produce, is exempted from the rigour of Rule 64 (1) of the Rules, 1963. The Association has also pointed out that practically in all KrishiUpaj Mandis in various districts, of Rajsamand, Bhilwara, Chittorgarh, Ajmer, Nagaur, Churu, Jhunjhunu, Tonk Alwar, Sikar, Pali etc. the traders are trading in sugar out-side the Principal Market Yard and that only in few selected towns and cities the trade in sugar is being carried on in the Principal Market Yard and that also not because of it being the requirement of law, but because the convenience of the traders. For this the Association has submitted a list Annexure-10. 8. On behalf of the K.U.M.S. (respondent No. 2) an additional affidavit of Shri Sri Narain Bhatnagar, Secretary, K.U.M.S. has been submitted, wherein it has been deposed that after the issuance of the impugned notice like Annexure-1, the traders had started complying with the provisions of the Act strictly and that out of 18 members of the Association mentioned in Schedule A, 13 traders had brought the sugar in the Principal Market Yard from 1.4.1992 to 30.8.1992, that during the said period 25500 bags of sugar were brought in the Principal Market Yard and sold to buyers there and that after the ad-interim order dated 24.8.1992 the traders have now stopped bringing sugar in the Principal Market Yard. He has also deposed that K.U.M.S. is one of the best Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti in the State, where facilities of all kinds like Canteen Building, Bank Building, Guest House, Shops/Godowns, about 250 big open spaces, Veterinary dispensary, Krishak Rest House, Dispensary Labour Shed, Ware Housing Godown, State Seeds Corporation, PBX facilities etc. for traders are available. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the learned Dy. Government Advocate at length and perused the relevant record. 10. The main contention of Shri N.P. Gupta is about the interpretation of Explanation of Rule 64 (1) of Rules 1963. According to him, since sugar is a manufactured agricultural produce, therefore, it is not at all necessary for the members of the Association to bring the sugar in the Principal Market Yard and to carry on their trade activities in sugar in the Principal Market Yard only. According to him, sugar is an exempted agricultural produce in view of the Explanation appended to Rule 64(1). He has submitted that any other interpretation of the Explanation to Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 64 shall offend and defeat the objects of the Act, 1961. 11. On the other hand Shri M.R. Singhvi, the learned counsel for the K.U.M.S. and Shri Lalit Kavaria, the learned Dy. Government Advocate have reiterated that the Explanation appended to Rule 64 (1) is quite clear and unambiguous, which does not exempt sugar from the rigour of Rule 64(1) of the Rules of 1963 and that this writ petition is legally not maintainable. 12. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions made at the bar. 13. The pre-amble of the Act, 1961 speaks that this Act has been enacted to provide for the better regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce and the establishment markets for agricultural produce in the State of Rajasthan. 14. Thus there is a definite public purpose for enacting the Act of 1961 namely the establishment of regulated market for purchase and sale of agricultural produce, to protect the agriculturists from being exploited by the middle men and the profiteers to enable them to secure a fair return for their produce by establishment of regulated markets, as has been held by this Court in MLS Narayan Hari Shankar vs. State of Raj: (1). 15. 15. Another object of this Act is the supervision and control of the transactions of purchase by the traders of the notified agricultural produce from the agriculturists in order to prevent exploitation of the latter by the former. In Kewal Krishan vs. State of Punjab, (2) while interpreting the provisions of Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961, which are analogous to the provisions of the Act, the Apex Court has held that the supervision and control of the Marketing Committee (like Krishi Upaj Mandi) can be effective only in the specified locality and places like Principal Market Yard and not throughout extensive area namely the notified market area. 16. Section 2 (1) (i) of the Act defines "agricultural produce", which includes all produce whether of agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandary or otherwise as specified in Schedule. In the Schedule appended with the Act, sugar has been included at S. No. 10 under the head Miscellaneous. 17. More-over in Kishan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (3), the contention that the sugar being produced in mills and factories could not be deemed to be agricultural produce has been negatived by the Apex Court and it has been held that sugar is an agricultural produce within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (i) of the Act. 18. Section 2 (1) (vii) defines "market", which means a regulated market established under and for the purposes of the Act for a market area and includes a market proper as well as a Principal Market Yard or a Sub-Market Yard. Section 2 (1) (viii) lays down that "market area" means any area declared to be a market area under Section 4. In the case in hand, at S.No. 33 of the notification dated 21.4.1977 (cited supra) the market area or Mandi Kshetra of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Udaipur includes areas of Panchayat Samiti Girva, Badgauv, Saronda, Salumber, Jhadol, Gogunda, Kotra Dhariya-wad, Khaigwada, and Municipal area of Udaipur and Salumber. 19. Section 2 (1)(x) of the Act says that "market proper" means the area including all lands with the buildings thereon, within such distance of a principal market yard or a sub market yard as the State Government may declare to be a market proper. In the instant case the municipal area of Udaipur has been declared to be a market proper. 20. In the instant case the municipal area of Udaipur has been declared to be a market proper. 20. According to Section 2 (1) (xiii) of the Act, "principal market yard means an enclosure, building or locality declared to be a principal market yard under Section 5, and the "sub-market yard" under sub-clause (xvii) means an enclosure, building or locality declared to be a sub-market yard under the said Section. The State Government by its notification S.O. 153 dated 24.10.1981 (Annex.R2/2) published in Rajasthan Gazette dated 30.10.1981 has declared the newly constituted Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Udaipur situated in Hiran Magri Udaipur as the principal market yard and defined its boundaries. 21. Section 4 (2) of the Act lays down that on and after the date on which any area is declared to be a market area, no place in the said area shall, subject to the provisions of Section 14, be used for the purchase or sale of any notified agricultural produce. Section 4 (3) of the Act specifically says that on or after the date of notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 4 or such later date as it is specified therein, no local authority notwithstanding anything contained in any law, and no other person, shall within the market area or within a distance thereof to be notified in the Official Gazette in this behalf issued by the State Government, set up, establish or continue or allowed to be set up, established or continued any place for the purpose of sale of any agricultural produce so notified. Therefore, it is crystal clear that after the declaration of the market area and the principal market yard, notwithstanding anything contained in any law, no local authority or no other person shall set up. establish or continue or allowed to be set up established or continued any place for the purchase or sale of any notified agricultural produce within the market area or within its distance thereof. In other words, after the notification of principal market yard or sub-market yard, the entire transaction of purchase and sale of any notified agricultural produce, which includes sugar also, has to be carried out within (he precincts/boundaries of the principal market yard or sub-market yard. 22. Rule 64 of the Rules, 1963 reads as under: "Rule 64. In other words, after the notification of principal market yard or sub-market yard, the entire transaction of purchase and sale of any notified agricultural produce, which includes sugar also, has to be carried out within (he precincts/boundaries of the principal market yard or sub-market yard. 22. Rule 64 of the Rules, 1963 reads as under: "Rule 64. Sale of Agricultural Produce—(1) All the notified agricultural produce or brought into the market or produced processed in the market proper except such quantity for consumption as may be prescribed in the bye laws, shall pass through the principal market yard or sub-market yard or yards and shall not be sold at any other place within the market proper. Explanation : For the purpose of this rule, processed agricultural produce shall include all the notified agricultural produce processed in the market but not a manufactured produce. (2) Such details of all notified agricultural Produce resold in the market area shall also be reported to the market committee in accordance with the provisions of the bye-laws. (3) The price of agricultural produce brought into the market for sale shall be settled by open auction and not by secret signs and no deductions shall be made from the agreed price of the consignment except for any authorised trade allowance: Provided that the Director; if he deems fit; may permit the system of sale by open Agreement at the market yard: Provided further that the open auction system will not apply to the resale of the notified agricultural produce within had already been brought in the market yard. (4) Any person who contravenes the provisions of sub-rule (2) or (3) shall on conviction be punishable under sub-section (3) of section 36 with a fine which may extend to Rs. 200/-". 23. Rule 64 has, therefore, to be read in conjunction and along with section 4 (2) (?) of the Act. A careful perusal of Rule 64 (1) makes it abundantly clear that the general Rule is that all the notified agricultural produce (i) brought into the market or (ii) produced or (iii) processed in the market proper, except such quantity for consumption as prescribed by bye-laws, shall pass through the principal market yard or sub-market yard or yards and shall not be sold at any place within the market proper. Now, there is one exception to the said general rule, which is provided in the Explanation appended with the said sub-rule. This Explanation clearly lays down that for the purpose of Rule 64, processed agricultural produce shall include all the agricultural produce processed in the market, but shall not include a manufactured produce. Admittedly sugar is neither a processed agricultural produce nor an agricultural produce processed in the market proper, and therefore, this Explanation can not be pressed in to service for trading in sugar. Hence this Explanation does not exempt sugar from the rigour of the Rule 64(1), which requires that all the notified agricultural produce brought into the market shall pass through the Principal Market Yard and shall not be sold at any place within the market proper. Thus, the provisions of Rule 64(1) are unambiguous, explicit and clear and ambit of no exception or explanation so far as trading of sugar, which is a notified agricultural produce, is concerned. Rule 64 (1) of Rules of 1963 is also in consonance with the specific provisions of section 4 (2) (3) of the Act. Therefore, not an iota of doubt lurks in to my mind to hold that the trading in sugar has to be carried out only in the principal market yard, sub-market yard and not at any other place in the market proper or market area including Dhan Mandi, Udaipur, where the members of the Association are carrying on their business of trading. Simply because they are also trading in other commodities/articles besides sugar they can not claim any exemption from not carrying out their trading in sugar in the principal market yard/sub-market yard and in not bringing the sugar in the principal market yard or sub-market yard/yards. To my mind there is no overlapping, inconsist-tency or conflict whatsoever between the provisions of section 4 (2) & (3) of the Act and those of Rule 64 (1) of the Rules, 1963. Moreover this is a cardinal principle of interpretation of statutes that the provisions of Act shall always prevail over the provisions of Rules even incase of any inconsistency. The above mentioned interpretation does not defeat, offend or nulli the object of the Act. Moreover this is a cardinal principle of interpretation of statutes that the provisions of Act shall always prevail over the provisions of Rules even incase of any inconsistency. The above mentioned interpretation does not defeat, offend or nulli the object of the Act. In such circumstances the interpretation sought by Shri N.P. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, regarding Explanation appended to Rule 64 (1) to the effect that since the sugar is a manufactured article, it is not incumbent for the traders to pass it through the principal market yard and that there is no prohibition for their selling the sugar at any other place within the market proper is apparently irrational, absurd and wrong being against the unambiguous, explicit, specific and clear provisions of Rule 64 (i) as well as the provisions of Section 4 (2) & (3) of the Act. 24. It may also be mentioned here that the validity of the provisions contained in sub-clauses (vii), (x), (xiii), and (xvii) of clause (1) of Section 2 of the Act, which define the expressions market, market proper, principal market yard and sub-market yard/yards, section 5, which provides for declaration of principal Market yard and Sub-market yard/yards, Section 9, which defines functions and, duties of the market committee as well as the provisions of Rule 64 of Rules 1963 were challenged before this Court in Rikhab Chand Jain vs. State of Rajasthan(4) and it was held that the aforementioned provisions were intra vires and valid. It was also held that provisions contained in Rule 64 are essential for the proper and effective implementation of the provisions of the Act and that those are in accordance with the scheme of the Act. It was further held that the mere requirement of Rule 64 that the sale of agricultural produce shall be confined to the principal market yard or sub-market yard does not in any way curtail or restrict the power conferred on the marketing committee to manage the market or to control and regulate the marketing of the transactions in the market. On the other hand, Rule 64, assists the market committee in better enforcement of terms & conditions of the licence issued under section 14 of the Act and in collecting the market fees under section 17 of the Act. On the other hand, Rule 64, assists the market committee in better enforcement of terms & conditions of the licence issued under section 14 of the Act and in collecting the market fees under section 17 of the Act. It was further held that in framing Rule 64, the Rule making authority has also not contravened the provisions contained in section 9 of the Act, which enumerate the functions and duties of the marketing committee. 25. In Ram Chandra Kailash Kumar & Co. vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (5), various provisions of U.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 were challenged in a bunch of writ petition on various grounds. The provisions of the aforesaid U.P. Act, are similar/anologous with the provisions of the Act, 1961. In U.P. Act, the traders were required to take trade licence under section 9 (2) read with section 11 of the said Act for carrying on their business at such place, which was either a principal market yard or a sub-market yard or at any specified place in the market area. The Apex Court held that no body can be permitted to carry on his business any where in the market area, because the market committee will not be able to control the levy fees through out the market area. 26. In Ramesh Chandra Kachardas Porwal vs. State of Maharashtra (6), the validity of certain provisions of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1964 and Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1969 were challenged. It was submitted on behalf of petitioners that Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967 which provides that no person shall market any declared agricultural produce in any place in a market area other than the principal market or subsidiary market established therein was ultra vires. The Supreme Court repelling the argument held that Section 60 of that Act (like section 36 of the Act) empower red the State Government to make Rules for carrying into effect the purposes of the Act, and that it can not but be said that the establishment of principal and subsidiary market for the marketing of declared agricultural produce and the bar against marketing operations being carried on elsewhere than the market so established is only to further and to give effect to the purpose of the Act. It was further held that the regulation of marketing of notified agricultural produce and establishment of principal and subsidiary markets were among the prime object of the said Act and that for the more effective regulation of marketing it was thought that all marketing operations in respect of declared agricultural produce should be carried on only in the principal & subsidiary markets established under the Act, and that it could not possibly be said that a rule made for that purpose was beyond the competence of the rule making authority under the said Act. The Apex Court further held that the such regulation or control was much for the benefit of the traders and ultimate consumers. It was also held that there can not be any doubt that localising marketing is helpful and necessary for regulation and control and for providing facilities and that if all transactions are carried on in the principal market or subsidiary market under the watchful and; at the same time, helpful vigil of the Market Committee and its officers, there is surely a greater chance of the success of the objectives of the Statute. The Apex Court further held that the requirement that the locus of all transactions of sale and purchase of agricultural produce, including those between trader and trader, should be in the principal market/subsidiary market is not harsh and an excessive restriction on the fundamental right to carry on trade. 27. Hence, in view of the specific provisions of law and the authoritative interpretation given by the Apex Court, the notices issued by respondent No. 2 like Annex. 27. Hence, in view of the specific provisions of law and the authoritative interpretation given by the Apex Court, the notices issued by respondent No. 2 like Annex. 1, whereby it was pointed out to the members of the Association that by trading in sugar at their respective shops situated in Dhan Mandi, Udaipur and not bringing the sugar and carrying on transaction of sale by them in the notified principal market yard contravened the provisions of section 4 (3) and Rule 64 (I) of Rules, 1963 and that they can not be given permission to carry on trade in respect of the notified agricultural produce at places other than the principal market yard and directing them to bring their notified agricultural produce and pass it through the principal market yard and to have transaction there, failing which, necessary proceedings for cancellation/suspension of their licences shall be initiated, is neither illegal nor without jurisdiction nor the same offends or infringes any fundamental right of members of Association, under Articles 19 & 300A of the Constitution of India. Hence the contention of Shri N.P. Gupta on this count is also merit-less and the same is hereby repelled. 28. In the notices like Annexure-2 issued by the District Supply Officer (respondent No. 3) to the members of the Association, it has been pointed out that they were carrying on their business from places and godowns, which are not enumerated in their respective licences issued under the Order of 1980 for trading in sugar. It has also been mentioned therein that the licensees have, thus contravened the condition No. 11 of the licences and that they should either carry on their trade of the notified agricultural produce from the Krishi Upaj Mandi, failing which necessary action for cancelling their licences shall be initiated in accordance with law. A perusal of such licence (Annex. 7) reveals that as per condition 11, it was directed that the licensee shall, in case when he functions in regulated market, abide by such instructions relating to his business as are given by the marketing authority having jurisdiction. In licence (Annex. A perusal of such licence (Annex. 7) reveals that as per condition 11, it was directed that the licensee shall, in case when he functions in regulated market, abide by such instructions relating to his business as are given by the marketing authority having jurisdiction. In licence (Annex. 7), it has also been mentioned that the licencee shall carry on the business of sugar, Gur, Khandsari at the place enumerated therein and that such articles shall not be stored at any place other than those godowns mentioned therein and one of such places was located in Krishi Upaj Mandi Udaipur. Therefore, the D.S.O. (respondent No. 3) was fully authorised and within his jurisdiction in issuing notices like Annexure-2 to the members of the Association and his act was not at all illegal. Therefore, notices like Annexure-2 do not deserve to be quashed. 29. No other point survives for consideration nor was any other point pressed before me. 30. The up shot of the above discussion is that in view of specific provisions of Section 4 (2) & (3) of the Act read with Rule 64 (1) of the Rules, 1963 the members of the petitioner Association can not be allowed to set up, establish or continue in carrying on their trading for the purchase or sale of sugar which is a notified agricultural produce, at any other place within the market proper including Dhan Mandi, Udaipur. On the other hand, they are required to pass sugar through the Principal Market Yard or the Sub-Market Yard at Udaipur and not to purchase or sale such commodity at any other place. The notices like Annexures 1 & 2 issued by respondents No. 2 & 3 respectively are neither illegal nor without jurisdiction. 31. Hence, this writ petition is meritless and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.