Judgment :- R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. 1. The principal argument advanced for the petitioners is that the provisions in the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order 1984 providing for security deposit and for forfeiture thereof for the breach of the terms of the licence is unconstitutional. According to the petitioners the enactment under which the Order was issued namely, the Essential Commodities Act provides only for the forefeiture of the goods or the vehicles in the alternative or as supplemental to criminal prosecution. The making of a security deposit and the forfeiture thereof according to the counsel, are neither required nor provided for under the Act. 2. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State invited our attention to Section 3 (2)(h)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act which provides that without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) an order could be made under that Section providing interalia. “For the grant of issue of licences permits or other documents, the charging of fees therefore, the deposit of such sum, if any as may be specified in the order as security for the due performance of the conditions of any such licence, permit or other document the forfeiture of the sum so deposited or any part thereof for contravention of any such conditions, and the adjudication of such forfeiture by such authority as may be specified in that order. 3. A perusal of that provision makes it abundantly clear that the Essential Commodities Act, in addition to providing for forfeiture of the goods or the vehicles, and Criminal prosecution, also provides for requiring security deposits to be made and provides for forfeiture of such deposits for contravention of the conditions. 4. The Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order 1984 is one which is issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers delegated to it by the Central Government under Section 5 of the Act. That order in clause 11 provides for a security deposit being made by persons who apply for licence under that Order, the amounts prescribed are not large for a retail trader in paddy and rice the licence fee is Rs. 200/- the maximum security deposit is only Rs. 2,000/- for a wholesale dealer dealing with essential trade articles mentioned in Schedule 1 of the Order. 200/- the maximum security deposit is only Rs. 2,000/- for a wholesale dealer dealing with essential trade articles mentioned in Schedule 1 of the Order. That Rule further provides that if the applicant has obtained licence under any of the earlier Regulatory Orders and had made deposits, such deposits shall be regarded as deposits having been made for the purpose of this Order as well. Rule 24 provides for forfeiture of the security deposit in the event of breach of any of the conditions of the licence. Rule 25 provides for the forfeiture of the additional security deposit. 5. Counsel for the State also invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of East India Commercial Co., Ltd., Calcutta and another v. Collector of customs, Calcutta (A.I.R 1962 S.C. 1893) a case which arose under the customs Act wherein the Supreme Court had pointed out that violation of the terms of the statute and the orders made thereunder is different from the violation of the terms of the licence issued under the terms of the order made under the statute. The forfeiture of the security deposit provided for under Rule 24 is for breach of the conditions of the licence whereas the penalties provided for under Section 6 A and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is for violation of the terms of the Control orders made under’ the Act. 6. The prescription of security deposit as a pre-condition for grant of licence and the provisions providing for forfeiture of the deposit for breach of the conditions, such forfeiture being permissible only after due opportunity to show cause has been given to the licencee is therefore perfectly constitutional and intravires the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. There is no merit in the contentions urged by the petitioner and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. This petition is filed by an Association of Foodgrains Merchants. This matters was referred by a learned single Judge to the Division Bench as it was considered proper that the validity of the provisions of the Control Order be decided by the Division Bench. After examination, we find that there is no substance in these petitions. It is but right that the petitioner bears the cost to the State. This matters was referred by a learned single Judge to the Division Bench as it was considered proper that the validity of the provisions of the Control Order be decided by the Division Bench. After examination, we find that there is no substance in these petitions. It is but right that the petitioner bears the cost to the State. We are concerned that many matters which are without any substance are being brought before Court consuming the time of the Court when such time is required for adjudicating matters of substance which have been filed years earlier. It is high time litigants realise the value of the Courts time and their responsibility in ensuring that such time is not diverted to consider matters wholly lacking in substance. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/-. Consequently connected W.M.P is closed.