Judgment S.K.Katriar, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the notification dated 16.9.1996 (Annexure-1), issued by the Government of Bihar in the Department of Agriculture, whereby certain directions have been issued regarding issuance of, and the conditions attached to, the licenses granted under the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), read with the Insecticides Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). 2. According to the writ petition, the petitioner claims to be the Association representing the interest of the manufacturers, distributors, C & F Agents or persons selling, stocking, exhibiting for sale or distributing insecticides operation in Bihar. Such activities are governed by the Act, the Rules and the Insecticides (Price, Stock, Display and Submission of Reports) Order 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 1986 Order). The State Government has issued the impugned notification whereby restrictions have been imposed, and fresh license/permission of the Director of Agriculture of the State of Bihar and/or of the Controller within the meaning of the 1986 Order is required to be obtained. The petitioner challenges the validity of the impugned notification on diverse grounds. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order creating jurisdiction of the Director of Agriculture and/or the Controller under the Act or the 1986 Order is violative of Section 12 of the Act and the cognate provisions. When the notification under Section 12 of the Act vests the District Agricultural Officer with the jurisdiction with respect to each district, the impugned order vesting jurisdiction in the Director of Agriculture is bad in law which has also been made punishable. It imposes an unreasonable restriction and is violative of Article 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution of India. He next submits that insofar as the persons doing business on the basis of the Principals Certificate is concerned, the power is vested in the Insecticides Inspectors, and the further power given to the Controller under the 1986 Order is obviously an unreasonable restriction and bad in law. Such restrictions cannot be imposed by administrative instructions. These are additional restrictions not contemplated by the Act. He, therefore, submits that the offending portions may be struck down. He relies on the following reported judgments. (i) 1995(1) PLJR 226 (M/s Swamp Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar & Anr.). Such restrictions cannot be imposed by administrative instructions. These are additional restrictions not contemplated by the Act. He, therefore, submits that the offending portions may be struck down. He relies on the following reported judgments. (i) 1995(1) PLJR 226 (M/s Swamp Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar & Anr.). (ii) 1999(2) PLJR 799 (M/s Oswal Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited & Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors.). [and upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Oswal Chemicals reported in 2001(2) PLJR 691 ]". (iii) 2002(4) PLJR 120 (Vijay Kumar Rana V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors.). (iv) AIR 2002 SC 1633 (State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. V/s. Oaulat Ram Gupta). (v) 2002(3) PLJR 113 (Subhash Singh & Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors.). 3.1) Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in case it is held that Section 37 of the Act gives the power to the State Government to issue the impugned notification, then the condition precedent mentioned therein, namely, prior consultation with the Board, and previous publication in the official gazette, have not been observed and, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. He relies on the following reported judgments: (i) AIR 1974 SC 175 (Narayan Sankaran Moss V/s. State of Kerala &Anr.). (ii) 1968 PUR 582 (The Mahnar Notified Area Committee & Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar). 3.2) He lastly submits that the impugned notification must disclose the source of power whereunder the same has been issued. He relies on the judgment reported in A1987 PLJR A (Birendra Kumar Singh & Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors.) (Paras 13 and 14). 4. Learned Standing Counsel No. Ill has opposed the writ petition and supported the impugned order. 5. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The Preamble of the Act states that the Act has been brought on the statute book to regulate the import, manufacture, sale, transport, distribution and use of insecticides with a view to prevent risk to human beings or animals, and for matters connected therewith. Those operating under the Act, the Rules, and the 1986 Order, may broadly be summarised in three categories. Those operating under the Act, the Rules, and the 1986 Order, may broadly be summarised in three categories. The first category comprises of those who are engaged in manufacture of insecticides etc within the State of Bihar; the second category comprises of those persons who are engaged in manufacture of insecticides etc. outside the State of Bihar but are themselves marketing and distributing their products within the State of Bihar; and the third category comprises of those who are engaged in manufacture of insecticides outside the State of Bihar, but their products are being marketed and sold through their agents in the State of Bihar on the strength of the certificates issued by them described in the Rules and the Act as Principali.e. engaged in the task of distribution, marketing and sale to the consumers on the strength of the Principals Certificate. The three different categories of persons are governed by different provisions of the Act, Rules and the 1986 order. 6. Section 12 of the Ac provides as follows: "12. Licensing Officers.The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be licensing officers for the purposes of this Act and define the areas in respect of which they shall exercise jurisdiction." In purported exercise of powers under Section 12 of the Act, the State Government in the Department of Agriculture issued notification No. 12262, dated 7.11.1987 (Annexure-A), whereby the following officers have been appointed Licensing Officer for the areas mentioned against their description: Name of Officer Nature of Work Jurisdiction 1. 2. 3. Director of Agriculture, Bihar, Patna Manufacturing/Formulation Entire Bihar Director of Agriculture, Bihar, Patna Sale/Storage or display or distribution Entire Bihar Director of Agriculture, Ranchi Sale/Storage or display or distribution North and South Chhotanagpur and Santhal Pargana Division Joint Director of Agriculture (PC), Bihar, Patna ........ More than one division except (North and South) Chhotanagpur and Santhal Pargana Division Divisional Joint Director of Agriculture ........ More than one district under Jurisdiction where Deputy Director of Agriculture (Plant Conservation) Is not posted. Divisional Deputy Director of Agriculture (Plant Conservation) ........ More than one district under jurisdiction District Agriculture Officer ........ Block and district within jurisdiction. Rule 9(2) provides that if any insecticide is proposed to be manufactured at more than one place, separate applications shall be made and separate licenses shall be issued in respect of every such place. Divisional Deputy Director of Agriculture (Plant Conservation) ........ More than one district under jurisdiction District Agriculture Officer ........ Block and district within jurisdiction. Rule 9(2) provides that if any insecticide is proposed to be manufactured at more than one place, separate applications shall be made and separate licenses shall be issued in respect of every such place. License to manufacture insecticides has to be issued in Form v. Section 13(3) of the Act provides that Licensing Officer may grant a license in such form, on such conditions and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed. In other words, license for each area has to be issued by the Licensing Officer mentioned in the notification dated 7.11.87 (Annexure-A). The State Government noticed that the Licensing Authorities at the lower level are restricted in their operation to their territorial Jurisdiction which is causing difficulty to those of the manufacturers, retailers etc. who are operating in more than one area. The State Government further noticed that a person having obtained license from a Licensing Officer for one area, was operating in a clandestine manner in different areas in the State of Bihar and was taking advantage of such a situation selling fake and spurious insecticides. Director of Agriculture is already included in the aforesaid notification under Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the State Government has issued the impugned notification which, to my mind, is only clarificatory and/or supplemental to the said notification dated 7.11.1987 (Annexure-A). 7 The said notification dated 7.11.1987 (Annexure-A) has been issued in exercise of the powers under Section 12 of the Act and has not been challenged in the present writ petition. Therefore, conferment of power on the authorities mentioned therein is beyond challenge. For example, the District Agriculture Officer has jurisdiction to grant license for the district within which he exercises his jurisdiction. The Director of Agriculture has the jurisdiction over the entire State of Bihar. In other words, the requisite notification in terms of Section 12 of the Act has already conferred jurisdiction on the Director of Agriculture for the whole of the State of Bihar. We have, therefore, to examine the validity of the impugned notification in this background. Clause 1 of the impugned notification is reproduction of the said notification dated 7.11.1987 (Annexure-A) and need not detain us. We have, therefore, to examine the validity of the impugned notification in this background. Clause 1 of the impugned notification is reproduction of the said notification dated 7.11.1987 (Annexure-A) and need not detain us. Clauses 2 and 9 of the impugned notification are in the first category mentioned hereinabove, Clause 2 states that the manufacturers, dealers, distributors, stockists of pesticides etc. operating in the State of Bihar in more than one district shall not be required to take separate licenses from the licensing authority having jurisdiction over each district, but one license from the Director of the Agriculture who has jurisdiction for the whole of the State of Bihar. Clause 9 of the order provides that it would be mandatory for all the manufacturers to inform positively to the District Agriculture Officer of the concerned district, by providing information to the Controller about the quantity of insecticides to be supplied at the time of supply to the distributors, stockists and C&FAgents. These two clauses are fully consistent with the provisions of Sections 12 and 13(3) of the Act. I am of the view that it only clarifies the position and does not impose any new restriction. The Director of Agriculture is the Principal authority under the Act and the Rules and is also the Controller under 1986 Order. 8. Insofar as Clauses 3 and 10 are concerned, Clause 3 applies to the manufacturers and distributors from outside the state who are required to obtain permission of the Director of Agriculture-cum-lnsecti-cides Controller before selling, distributing, storing and displaying pesticides in the State of Bihar. Clause 10 requires manufacturers from outside the State of Bihar to seek permission in the enclosed format. These restrictions are fully consistent with the provisions of Section 12 read with Section 13(3) of the Act and the cognate provision of the Act and the Rules. 9. Rule 10(4A)(ii) provides that persons selling, stocking or exhibiting for sale or distributing insecticides in the State of Bihar which are manufactured outside the State of Bihar can operate on the basis of the license issued by such persons who are described in the Rules as Principal. 9. Rule 10(4A)(ii) provides that persons selling, stocking or exhibiting for sale or distributing insecticides in the State of Bihar which are manufactured outside the State of Bihar can operate on the basis of the license issued by such persons who are described in the Rules as Principal. In other words, persons engaged in the sale of insecticides in the State of Bihar on the strength of the Principals Certificate have so far been operating on the strength of the certificate in Form VI D. In order to check sale of spurious insecticides, Clauses 4 to 8 provide that permission of the Director of Agriculture and the Controller is imperative. This is perfectly consistent with the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules, and is a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. In fact, as stated hereinabove, these restrictions are supplemental to the notification dated 7.11.1987 (Annexure-A). 10. The Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 1982 BBCJ 392 [:1982 PLJR 368] (Man Singh V/s.The State of Bihar & Ors.) is relevant in the present context, paragraph 9 of which is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: "9. I first take up the question as to the true nature of Annexure-5. Rules relating to the services can be framed in exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution. There are number of service rules which have been made, or have the force of rules made, under Article 309 of the Constitution. The question as to what should be the policy in relation to transfer of Government employees could, in my view, be surely laid down by a proper service rule made under the Article aforesaid. So also the procedure. But, we find that State has not made any service rules relating to transfer and postings of Government employees. In this situation it was open to the State Government to issue executive instructions which would supplement the rules already in existence. This is well settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sant Ram Sharma V/s. State of Rajasthan & Union of India V/s. K.P. Joseph and other cases taking the same view. It is only where the executive instructions attempt to supplant the rules that it can have no legal force. Such is not the position here. This is well settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sant Ram Sharma V/s. State of Rajasthan & Union of India V/s. K.P. Joseph and other cases taking the same view. It is only where the executive instructions attempt to supplant the rules that it can have no legal force. Such is not the position here. There is no conflict between Annexure-5 and any of the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The instructions, therefore, in my view, would govern the conditions of service in relation to the policy and procedure for the transfer of Government employees." 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the condition engrafted in Section 37 of the Act has not been followed before issuance of the notification. The contention is stated only to be rejected. Section 37 vests the State Government with the powers to make rules for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act, and are not inconsistent. The impugned notification is obviously not in exercise of the powers under Section 37 of the Act and, therefore, the same is not attracted in the present case. In fact, the same may in one sense be deemed to have been issued in exercise of the powers under Section 13(3) of the Act which provides that "... on receipt of any such application for the grant of a license, the licensing Officer may grant a license, in such form, on such conditions and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed." In other words, the State Government has done the desirable act of standardization of the terms and conditions of license by issuing the impugned notification and not leaving it to the discretion of the individual functionaries. Furthermore, as stated hereinabove, the Director of Agriculture is the Principal authority under the Act, the Rules and the 1986 Order. 12. Learned Standing Counsel is right in his submission that the impugned order is intended to control undesirable activities of the manufacturers and/or distributors, sellers acting in violation of the Act and the Rules and in order to check manufacture and sale of fake and spurious insecticides. Furthermore, it only helps the manufacturers and/or sellers who are operating in more than one district. Furthermore, it only helps the manufacturers and/or sellers who are operating in more than one district. They were hitherto required to obtain license from more than one authority, and are now required to take only one license for operating in more than one district from a single authority, namely, the Director of Agriculture. 13. The impugned order does not create any new punishment. The punishment is already provided in the Act and the Rules thereunder, and the 1986 Order. 14. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is dismissed.