H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) BY these petitions, the petitioners have sought for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing Annexure-B an endorsement issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Food) respondents 3 and 4, to the Chamber of Commerce that in view of the amendment in the schedule the wholesaler, producer or the commission agent, neither of them can store nor keep in their possession the essential commodities namely rice or any other essential commodity as mentioned under Schedule IV, beyond the limit or extent prescribed therefor as amended by notification annexure-A. The petitioners have further sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to implement the notification Annexure-A as it is not applicable to the petitioners who are commission agents on behalf of the producers. ( 2 ) AS mentioned earlier, the petitioners claim themselves as commission agents and they assert to be selling agricultural produce within the jurisdiction of the Market Committee, bijapur, under the valid licence issued in their favour. The agriculturists approach the petitioners who are the commission agents for selling their respective produces in the market and as soon as the agricultural produce arrives at the market yard, petitioners store the agricultural produce in their respective godowns. They claim to be acting as commission agents on behalf of the producers. On October 21, 1991, a notification was issued in exercise of powers under Section 3 (5) of the Essential commodities Act (Central Act 10 of 1955) by the State government of Karnataka making amendments in Schedule IV to the Karnataka Essential Commodities Licensing Order, 1986 with reference to Item No. 1, sub-items (b) and (d) and substituted for expression 250 quintals, expression 1000 quintals with reference to rice in sub-item (b) and with reference to sub-item i. e. , Gur, it was mentioned that so far as Gur is concerned, expression 500 quintals shall be substituted for expression 250 quintals. The Chamber of Commerce sought a clarification and in reply thereof endorsement 'b' (Annexure-B) was issued stating that the notification also applies to the commission agents. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed these petitions for the above directions. ( 3 ) APPEARANCE has been put up on behalf of the opposite parties by Sri B. G. Sridharan, learned Counsel, on behalf of respondent 2 and by Sri. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed these petitions for the above directions. ( 3 ) APPEARANCE has been put up on behalf of the opposite parties by Sri B. G. Sridharan, learned Counsel, on behalf of respondent 2 and by Sri. R. K. Hatti, learned Government pleader for respondents 1, 3 and 4, The learned Counsel for the opposite parties urged that this question only involves construction and interpretation of notification and therefore the petitions can be disposed of after the arguments. ( 4 ) I have heard the petitioners' Counsel Sri, Ramesh B. Anneppanavar. The learned Counsel submitted that the use of expression in respect of "wholesale dealer" in Annexure-A per se reveals the intention of the framers of the order that the application of amendment is confined only to the wholesalers and not to the commission agents. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners has been hotly contested by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties and it has been submitted that this restriction and prohibition should be read with proviso 3 of the Karnataka Essential Commodities licensing Order, 1986. ( 5 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions of the learned Counsels for the parties. Under Essential Commodities Act, the karnataka Government issued the Karnataka Essential commodities Licensing Order, 1986. Clause 3 thereof provides for licensing of commission agents, dealers and producers. It reads as under and is being quoted in extenso. "3. Licensing of Commission Agents, Dealers and producers. Under Essential Commodities Act, the karnataka Government issued the Karnataka Essential commodities Licensing Order, 1986. Clause 3 thereof provides for licensing of commission agents, dealers and producers. It reads as under and is being quoted in extenso. "3. Licensing of Commission Agents, Dealers and producers. No person shall after the commencement of this order, carry on business as a commission agent, dealer and producer in any of the essential commodities mentioned in Schedule I except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence issued in this behalf by the Licensing Authority: provided that no such licence shall be required for a commission agent, dealer and producer who stores for sale at any one time essential commodities in quantities not exceeding the limits specified in Schedule II: provided further that no person who at the commencement of this order, is a commission agent, dealer and producer as defined in sub-clause (ba), (c) and (ga) of clause 2 of the Order shall carry on business as such commission agent, dealer and producer without obtaining a licence issued in this behalf by a Licensing Authority within a period of thirty days from the commencement of this order: provided also that no wholesale dealer or retail dealer or producer or commission agent shall, either by himself or by any person on his behalf, store or have in his possession essential commodity at any time not more than the quantity as specified in Schedule IV". ( 6 ) FOR the purpose of the present case, 3rd proviso to clause 3 is very material. This proviso purports to control the holding of essential commodities. It is intended to prohibit the holding of essential commodity by the traders or businessmen. This provides that neither a wholesale dealer nor a retailer nor a producer nor a commission agent shall, either by himself or by any person acting on his behalf, store or keep in his possession or have in his possession essential commodity in excess of the prescribed limit of the quantity as is specified in Schedule IV. Schedule IV prescribes the maximum limit to which extent a wholesale dealer or a retailer or a producer or a commission agent can have or can keep in his possession or can store the essential commodity, also to say to what maximum extent he can store the essential commodity. Schedule IV prescribes the maximum limit to which extent a wholesale dealer or a retailer or a producer or a commission agent can have or can keep in his possession or can store the essential commodity, also to say to what maximum extent he can store the essential commodity. A perusal of Schedule IV shows that wholesale dealer, producer and commission agent are dealt in one clause while retailers have been dealt in another clause. Entry (1) relates to the traders who are either wholesale dealers or producers or commission agents and provides that they are entitled to store the essential commodity or produce upto the limit indicated in the schedule and not beyond that. Prior to the issuance of this notification Annexure-A, it was provided that with reference to the wholesale dealer, producer and commission agent as well as with reference to produce rice, wheat and gur, the maximum limit was prescribed as 250 quintals, that means they could not store any of these essential commodities in excess of 250 quintals at a time. An amendment has come into effect enhancing that limit in case of rice to the extent of 1000 quintals and in case of gur to the extent of 500 quintals. This enhancement of the limit is beneficial to the wholesale dealers, producers as well as to the commission agents. These traders who are either wholesale dealers or producers or commission agents now under this order-Annexure-A, have been declared entitled to store or keep in their possession that much rice or gur that which does not exceed the extent of amended quantum namely rice to the extent of 1000 quintals and gur to the extent of 500 quintals. This amendment appears to be really beneficial to the petitioners including the commission agent and the commissioner has really indicated that this is a beneficial provision whereby the extent of capacity to store has been extended or increased from 250 quintals to 1000 quintals in case of rice and 500 quintals in case of gur is available and applicable to all the three i. e. , wholesale dealer, producer and commission agent. In my opinion, the schedule does not prohibit from keeping or storing the goods i. e. produce rice or gur within that limit. In my opinion, the schedule does not prohibit from keeping or storing the goods i. e. produce rice or gur within that limit. Instead 3rd proviso to Clause 3 of the Karnataka Essential commodities Licensing Order prescribes the maximum limit to the extent of which either of the three can hold or store the essential commodity at a time. So far as retailers are concerned, they are dealt under Schedule IV, Entry (2) thereof with respect to paddy, rice, wheat and gur. I am not concerned with the matter of retailers nor does this Government order Annexure-A relates to the retailers. That limit, in my opinion, has got a social welfare context and it runs against the spirit of holding of essential commodity by traders. This is a social welfare legislation intended to benefit the larger interest of the society. That a limit has been put up on the right of the traders or businessmen to keep in their store the essential commodity and to the limited extent as prescribed (sic) by IV Schedule and they are (sic) and not to store things beyond the limit so as to give rise to black markets. This provision is a beneficial provision and in consonance with the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Writ sought in the present case, in my opinion, particularly seeking mandamus not to implement Annexure-A is mis-conceived. The present writ petitions, in my opinion, are mis-conceived as neither Annexure-A nor Annexure-B furnishes no cause of action to the petitioners to file the petitions. The petitioners, in my opinion, are not entitled to claim or to get any of the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. ( 7 ) SUBJECT to the above observations and explanations explaining the legal position the writ petitions are hereby dismissed as mis- conceived and frivolous with costs assessed at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per petitioners. The learned Government Pleader Sri. R. K. Hatti is permitted to file memo of appearance. --- *** --- .