ORDER Mathur, C.J. -- 1. In both these petitions, common question of law is involved and, therefore, both of them are disposed of by this common order. 2. For disposal of these petitions, the facts given in M.P. No. 3084/92 have been taken into consideration. 3. Petitioner by this petition has prayed that the explanation appended to the Notification issued by the State (Annexures A, Band C) be declared ultra vires unjust and unreasonable and mandamus may be issued against the respondents directing them to apply uniform rate of tax in respect of loose tea at 7%. 4. Petitioner is the wholesale dealer carrying on business of loose tea under the trade name 'Khanna Stores' at Jabalpur. Petitioner is also a registered dealer under the provisions of M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, (for short the Act). The State Government issued a Notification (Annexure A) in exercise of the power conferred by section 12 of the Act and exempted class of goods specified in column (3) from 1.8.90 to 1.3.91 from payment of tax as under: "Loose tea: Partially no as to reduce the rate of tax u/s. 6 to 7%." Thereafter another Notification (Annexure B) was issued on 3.11.90, published on 5.11.90 in the M.P. Rajpatra. exercising power u/s. 12 of the Act adding an explanation which has also been made retrospective from 1.8.90, i.e. Annexure A. The explanation reads as under: "For purposes of item 2 in the Schedule, loose tea' means tea sold in bulk in packages of 20 kg. and above, i.e. not in smaller packets within the package of 20 kg. or more." Thereafter, another Notification (Annexure C) dated 31.3.92 was issued whereby the State Govt. has exempted payment of sales tax with effect from 1.4.92 to 31.3.95 subject to restrictions and conditions specified in column (2) of the Schedule which reads: "35. Loose tea .. Partly so as to reduce the rate of tax u/s. 6 (1) to 7%. 5. The petitioner has challenged the explanation as quoted above to show that two rates of tax cannot be imposed for a single commodity. Loose tea .. Partly so as to reduce the rate of tax u/s. 6 (1) to 7%. 5. The petitioner has challenged the explanation as quoted above to show that two rates of tax cannot be imposed for a single commodity. It was submitted that normal rate of tax of tea is 10% and another rate is 7% and the explanation for giving this lesser rate of taxation is that those who buy tea in bulk in packages of 20 kg and above, then such purchases will be subject to lesser rate of tax. It is further clarified that 20 kg does not mean that smaller packets cannot be put to make 20 kg or more. The idea is that the tea should be in a bulk weighing 20 kg or more, i.e. there should not be smaller packets. Learned counsel submitted that this classification has no nexus which is sought to be achieved and, therefore, it is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 301 of the Constitution. 6. Return has been filed by the respondents. They have clarified that this was done with a view to benefit persons belonging to poor strata of society and that the incidence of tax is reduced for such kind of persons. In the return it is submitted as under: "It is submitted that loose tea available and sold in the market is to cater to the needs of poorer and lower section of the society which cannot afford to purchase the higher quality of tea sold under a brand name in an air-tight package. It is submitted that package of tea having the quantity of 250 gm and above are generally packed either at the factory of the Tea Company or at its Depot before it reaches for sale and consumption. On the other hand, loose tea is sold in bulk by tea Companies to the wholesalers. After such bulk purchase, the wholesale dealer either prepares small packages of the quantity of 5, 10, 15 gms or sell loose quantity of tea to the retailers. It is submitted that notification Annexure A has been issued to reduce the burden of tax on the lower section of the society which can afford to purchase either loose tea or tea in the quantity of 5, 10, 15 gms etc. It is submitted that notification Annexure A has been issued to reduce the burden of tax on the lower section of the society which can afford to purchase either loose tea or tea in the quantity of 5, 10, 15 gms etc. which is obtained and made marketable out of bulks purchase of tea in the packages of 20 kg and above. To bring out the aforesaid benefit to the lower section of the society to the forefront, the explanation was added by the Notification Annexure B with retrospective effect." Therefore, it was submitted that this classification of loose tea and packet tea cannot be said to suffer from arbitrariness. 7. After going through the return filed by the State explaining the object behind this classification, we find that it is for the benefit of the poor people so that the incidence of taxation will be less on such poor strata of society and this cannot be said to be a bad classification. The idea behind it is that the incidence of taxation on the poor persons should be less and that is being sought to be achieved by prescribing low rate of tax on the bulk sale of tea which is normally sold in bulk of more than 20 kg packages and that 20 kg of buil packages are being sold by the retailers in open market loosely. Therefore, for such small quantity of tea which is being sold to the consumers, the incidence of taxation will be suffered less by them as against the air-tight packets of various quantities of tea weighing from 250 gms and above. We are satisfied that this classification which has been made with a view to benefit the poor people cannot be termed as arbitrary or in violation of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 301 of the Constitution. Rather the idea is sought to be achieved to the benefit of the poor and such classification cannot be termed as a bad classification so as to strike it down. 8. In this connection our attention was invited to the case of Kerala Hotel and Restaurant Association v. State ofKerala, ( AIR 1990 SC 913 ). Rather the idea is sought to be achieved to the benefit of the poor and such classification cannot be termed as a bad classification so as to strike it down. 8. In this connection our attention was invited to the case of Kerala Hotel and Restaurant Association v. State ofKerala, ( AIR 1990 SC 913 ). In this case, the validity of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act came to be challenged and the classification in the Madras and Kerala General Sales Tax Acts was made on the basis of the higher rate of tax on the costlier cooked food. It was observed as under: "Classification in the Madras and Kerala Sales Tax Acts whereby the tax net covers only the sale of costlier cooked food in the posh eating houses while exempting the cooked food sold in the modest eating houses at lesser prices, thereby confining the burden to the more affluent in the society, satisfies the requirements of a valid classification. Moreover, the classification so made cannot be termed as arbitrary, being within the limits upto which the legislature is given a free hand for making classification in a taxing statute. The obvious reason for making the classification is to group together those eating houses alone wherein costlier cooked food is sold for the purpose of imposition of sales tax to raise the needed revenue from this source. The object apparently is to raise the needed revenue from this source by taxing the sale of cooked food only to the extent necessary and therefore, to confine the levy only to the costlier food, the predominant object is to tax sale of cooked food to the minimum extent possible size it is a vital need for sustenance. Those who can afford the costlier cooked food being more affluent would find the burden lighter. This object cannot be faulted on -principle and is indeed laudable." 9. Hence we do not find any merit in these petitions and both of them are dismissed. Security amount, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioners.