Both these writ petitions involving the same law point shall stand disposed of by this common order. Writ petition, OWP No.1237/04, has been filed by the President of All J&K Banquet Hall and Caterers Association and others running different banquet halls within the city of Jammu. The second writ petition bearing OWP No. 1153/04, has been filed by the petitioners who have booked different banquet halls for the marriage of their wards. Petitioners in the above writ petitions have challenged the legality of order No.1463-GAD of 2004 dt. 27th Oct04, (here-in-after referred to as the order), issued by the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Under Secretary to Government, General Administration Department, vide which the scale of hospitality on wedding and related ceremonies has been regulated as under:-- (a) For non vegetarian cuisine: i/ The number of guests on ring ceremonies shall not exceed 50 (fifty). ii/ The number of guests at the reception of Baraat including Baraatis and the relatives of the bride shall not exceed 200 (two hundred). iii/ The number of guests on the function organized by the family of the bridegroom (walima functions) including relatives shall not exceed 100 (hundred). v/ Maximum quantity of mutton (including chicken) to be prepared on the functions/ceremonies shall be as under: Ceremony Quantity a/ ring ceremony 25 kgs b/ reception of Baraat 100 kgs c/ function organized by the family of the bridegroom/walima function 50 kgs vi/ Number of dishes to be served Seven (b) For vegetarian cuisine:-- i/ The number of guests on ring ceremony shall not exceed 50 (fifty). ii/ The uumber of Baraatis shall not exceed 125 (one hundred twenty five). iii/ The number of guests at the reception of Baraat including Baraatis and relatives of the bride shall not exceed 250 (two hundred fifty). iv/ The number of guests on the function organized by the family of the bridegroom including relatives shall not exceed 250 (two hundred fifty). v/ There shall be no restriction on the quantity and the number of vegetable dishes to be served on any of the functions. There shall also be no restriction about the quantity of sweets, fruits, tea and coffee or cold drinks on any of the functions...." Petitioners have impugned the above order being illegal and unconstitutional as the petitioners have got the fundamental right of celebrating and enjoying the functions like marriages, ring ceremonies etc. There shall also be no restriction about the quantity of sweets, fruits, tea and coffee or cold drinks on any of the functions...." Petitioners have impugned the above order being illegal and unconstitutional as the petitioners have got the fundamental right of celebrating and enjoying the functions like marriages, ring ceremonies etc. as per their rites and customs. It is stated that the action of the State by way of passing of order impugned is direct interference in the personal affairs of all the citizens. Respondent-State on notice filed counter and denied the averments made in the writ petitions. It is pleaded that the order is legal, valid and constitutional and has been passed in the interest of public at large. In order to prevent extravagance and wastage of food items, the Government had taken a policy decision and issued a notification SRO 145/2004 dt. 25th May04, under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, to regulate the scale of hospitality in wedding and related ceremonies. It is stated that earlier a notification was issued in terms of SRO 455 dt. 11th Sept73, which was kept in abeyance was revived on 25th May04 vide SRO 145, referred to above, which too was kept in abeyance keeping in view the public importance. The earlier orders on the subject were rescinded with the approval of the Cabinet. It was further pleaded that the present order has been issued after calling the suggestions from different sections of the society. Therefore, this order is known as Guest Control Order. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The first point which is to be determined is whether SRO 145, referred to above could be issued by the State under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (here-in-after referred to as the Act). Section 3 of the said Act in so far as relevant reads as under:-- "3. Powers to control, production, supply, distribution, etc. of essential commodities-(1) The Central Government, so far as it appears to be necessary or expedient for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity, or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, may, by order provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof, and trade and commerce therein....." ............ of essential commodities-(1) The Central Government, so far as it appears to be necessary or expedient for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity, or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, may, by order provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof, and trade and commerce therein....." ............ (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by sub section (1), an order made thereunder may provide:-- a) for regulating by licences, permits or otherwise the production or manufacture of any essential commodity; b) for bringing under cultivation any waste or arable land whether appurtenant to a building or not, for the growing thereon of food-crops generally or of specified food crops, and for otherwise maintaining or increasing the cultivation of food crops generally, or of specified food crops; c) for controlling the prices at which any essential commodity may be bought or sold; d) for regulating by licences, permits or otherwise the shortage, transport, distribution, disposal, acquisition of any essential commodity; e) for prohibiting or withholding from sale of any essential commodity ordinarily kept for sale; f) for requiring any person holding stock of any essential commodity to sell the whole or specified part of the stock at such prices and to such persons or class of persons or in such circumstances, as may be specified in the order. g) for regulating or prohibiting any class of commercial or financial transactions relating to foodstuffs or cotton textiles, which in the opinion of the authority making the order are, if unregulated, likely to be detrimental to public interest; h) for collecting any information or statistics with a view to regulating or prohibiting any of the aforesaid matters; i) for requiring persons engaged in the production, supply or distribution of, or trade or commerce in, any essential commodity to maintain and produce for inspection such books, accounts and records relating to their business and to furnish such information relating thereto, as may be specified in the order; j) for any incidental and supplementary matters, including in particular the entering and search of premises, vehicles, vessels and aircrafts, the seizure by a person authorized to make such search of any articles in respect of which such person has reason to believe that contravention of the order has been, is being or is about to be committed, the grant or issue of licences, permits or other documents and the charging of fees therefor..............." Mr K.S. Johal, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that order is beyond the scope of Section 3(1) of the Act. He submitted that the order concerning the guest control is not permissible in law to be issued. It is further submitted that such a restriction imposed by the order is the direct interference in the personal life of a citizen, which is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as every citizen of India has a right to live with dignity as per his means. Therefore, no such order can be issued under Section 3(1) of the Act. I have considered this submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and find merit in it. A perusal of Section 3 of the Act indicates that if the Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing supply of any essential commodity or for securing the equal distribution and availability at a fair price, it may by order provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein. From the provisions referred to above, it cannot be inferred by any stretch of imagination that the legislature intended by the said provision that Government can issue such an order or can regulate the personal life of an individual and infringe upon the freedom of a citizen to live with dignity. The object of enacting the provision under Section 3(1) of the Act is that the essential commodities are made available to the citizens at reasonable price and the same may be distributed equitably. In the case in hand, there is no question of fixing the price for the essential commodity and making the same available to the citizens at reasonable price or their equal distribution but as per the order, the Government has fixed the number of guests who are to attend the function and the quantity of food stuffs which are to be served to the guests. Mr Salathia, Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State submitted that even though order under Section 3(1) is not permissible, even then, this order has been issued as a policy decision and the same has been done keeping in view the social reforms so that the citizens may not indulge in extravagance and can save the food grains as the country is facing the scarcity of food. It is stated that the court cannot review the policy decision unless it is malafide, unreasonable, arbitrary, unfair and against the spirit of Constitution and law. In support of his argument, he relied upon the judgments of the supreme Court reported in 2001(3) SCC 635, Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. V. Delhi Administration and others, and 2003(4) SCC 289,Federation of Railway Officers Association and ors v. Union of India. In support of his argument, he relied upon the judgments of the supreme Court reported in 2001(3) SCC 635, Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. V. Delhi Administration and others, and 2003(4) SCC 289,Federation of Railway Officers Association and ors v. Union of India. In AIR 1961 SC 1731, P.J. Irani v. State of Madras and another, the Apex Court while interpreting the scope of judicial review vis-a-vis legislative policy has held as under:-- "The order passed by the Government can be the subject of judicial review by the Courts for finding out where (a) it was discriminatory so as to offend Art.14 of the Constitution, (b) the order was made on grounds which were germane or relevant to the policy and purpose of the Act, and (c) it was not otherwise malafide." In Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. case, referred to above by the learned Additional Advocate General, it has been held as under:-- "It is well settled that the courts, in exercise of their power of judicial review, do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. Indeed, arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and mala fide will render the policy unconstitutional.." In Federation of Railway Officers Association supra, it has been held as under:-- "...Unless the policy or action is inconsistent with the constitution and the laws or arbitrary or irrational or abuse of power, the court will not interfere with such matters." In view of the above judicial precedents, the policy decision can be reviewed if it is ultravires to the provisions of the Constitution and the Act and is arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable. In the case in hand, the State Government has no power under the Act to regulate with regard to the calling of guests in any function nor the State has the power to impose restrictions regarding serving of food stuffs. If such a restriction is imposed, it would amount to interference in the personal life of a citizen which is violation of article 21 of the Constitution of India. Every citizen has a right to live with dignity as per his means and the State has no power to regulate the personal life a citizen. If such a restriction is imposed, it would amount to interference in the personal life of a citizen which is violation of article 21 of the Constitution of India. Every citizen has a right to live with dignity as per his means and the State has no power to regulate the personal life a citizen. If the order is implemented, then before performing the ceremonies, the person concerned will have to contact the authorities and will have to give information about the number of guests who will attend the function and the quantity of food stuff along with the menu which is to be served to them. At the same time, the authority will have to keep a watch over the functions. A citizen has a right to perform the wedding ceremonies according to his tradition and culture. It is the tradition in the society in every community to call the nears and dears at the wedding functions like ring ceremonies, marriages, receptions etc. The guests are also called as per the tradition prevalent in the community.The citizens spend the money on these functions as per their capacity. If any restriction is imposed, it will be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Any Act, order or policy which is framed in violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens cannot be sustained. The State has a right to ask the citizen about the source of money which has been spent on the wedding ceremonies. If a person spends ill-gotten money, then the State has a right to take action. The Apex Court in the case of Ramsharan Autyanuprasi and another v. Union of India and ors, AIR 1989 SC 549, while interpreting life and personal liberty of an individual, has held as under:-- "It is true that life in its expanded horizons today includes all that give meaning to a mans life including his tradition, culture and heritage and protection of that heritage in its full measure would certainly come within the encompass of an expanded concept of Art.21 of the Constitution. Yet, when one seeks relief for breach of Art.21, one must confine oneself to some direct, overt and tangible act which threatens the fullness of his life or the lives of others in the community." The Apex Court in the case of Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and others, AIR 1981 SC 746, while interpreting life held as under:-- "Of course, the magnitude and content of the components of this right would depend upon the extent of the economic development of the country, but it must, in any view of the matter, include the right to the basic necessities of life and also the right to carry on such functions and activities as constitute the bare minimum expression of the human self. Every act which offends against or impairs human dignity would constitute deprivation pro tanto of this right to live and it would have to be in accordance with reasonable, fair and just procedure established by law which stands the test of other fundamental rights........." The State Government earlier issued a notification SRO 455 dt. 11th Sept73, fixing the scale of hospitality on wedding related ceremonies but the same was kept in abeyance keeping in view the public protest. The impugned order was also kept in abeyance due to the public protest but subsequently it has been enforced. At the hearing, when it was pointed out to the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, as to why the aforesaid notification of 1973 was kept in abeyance, he submitted that the same was kept in abeyance taking into consideration the public opinion as the questions were raised about its enforcement. He submitted that before issuing the present notification, a Cabinet sub committee of the Ministers was constituted and the committee solicit the opinion of social organizations, NGOs and Voluntary organizations and after inviting the suggestions, the said notification has been issued. It is stated that the earlier notification issued in the year 1973 and the present one are verbatim. Law is a regulator of human conduct but no law can effectively work unless there is an element of acceptance by the people in the society. It is stated that the earlier notification issued in the year 1973 and the present one are verbatim. Law is a regulator of human conduct but no law can effectively work unless there is an element of acceptance by the people in the society. The present order which is a public policy as asserted by the learned Additional Advocate General is against the wishes of the citizens and is ultravires to the Constitution as well as against the Act, which demonstrates from the fact that order issued in the year 1973 had to be kept in abeyance. The contention raised by the learned Additional Advocate General is that the impugned order has been issued after the sub-committee obtained the public opinion but from the record, it reveals that the impugned order has not been issued after obtaining the public opinion, rather the sub committee was constituted after issuance of order and subsequently, the opinion from the public was obtained. There is no legal bar that after the issuance of order, the State Government cannot obtain suggestions from the public but the order can be enforced only if the same is legal and enforceable. The contention has been raised by the State counsel that the impugned order has been issued with the aim and object that people may not indulge in extravagance and can save the foodgrains as the country is facing scarcity of food. I have considered this aspect of the case. The State had issued SRO 455 on 11th Sept73 i.e. more than three decades earlier. At that time, the country was facing acute shortage of food grains and was importing the food grains to meet the demand but due to green revolution, the country has not only become self sufficient in the production of food grains and eatables but is also exporting the same in substantial quantity. The country is today facing the problem of storing the food grains and these are being kept in the open and are being damaged. Petitioners have pleaded that about 15% of the food stock is only being consumed and more than 20% of the food stock gets rotten in godowns because of the non user and non consumption. Respondents have not controverted this fact. The State has also taken a plea that this policy decision has been taken so that people may not indulge in extravagance. Respondents have not controverted this fact. The State has also taken a plea that this policy decision has been taken so that people may not indulge in extravagance. For that the State has to make the people aware that they should not indulge in extravagance and should save the money as well as the food which can be utilized for the welfare of the Society, but the State has no power to frame any such policy which is violative of the fundamental rights of the citizens. As it has been noticed above, the impugned order is beyond the scope of Section 3(1) of the Act and is unenforceable. It is violative of the fundamental rights of the citizens, and therefore, cannot be sustained. It has not been mentioned in the policy decision in case anyone violates the same, who is competent to take cognizance of, whether the offence will be cognizable or non-cognizable, bailable or non-bailable and which court will be competent to try the offence. For the reasons mentioned above, these petitions are accepted. The impugned order bearing No. 1463-GAD of 2004 dt. 27th Oct 04, is declared ultravires and is set aside. There will be no order as to the costs.