1. With the consent of the parties, petition taken on board for final disposal at admission stage. 2. Petitioners are engaged in the business of running rice and flour mills, for which they have been granted licence by the authority concerned under the provisions of J&K Govt. Rice and Flour Mills (Licensing and Control) Order, 1958. The petitioners have installed their units in village and panchayat halqa Thana Plassi, district Kathua. The action of the respondent authorities in granting license to respondent No.4 for installing one more flour mill in the said village is being impugned in the present petition. 3. It is contended by the petitioners: a/ that the annual yield of wheat, rice and maize produced in the village is not sufficient to even cater to the requirement of the mills of the petitioners and in case, another unit is installed in the area, the petitioners will suffer a huge loss. b/ that as per the report of the Agriculture department, the annual production of wheat and maize is approximately 5800 quintals and presently the requirement of four mills already existing in the area comes to 6400 quintals. It is stated that on the basis of this report, there is no requirement of installation of another unit in the area; c/ that the minimum consumption of one flour mill is 1600 quintals and keeping in view the said quantity of raw material, and there being already four units in working condition, it will not be viable to install one more unit in the area; e/ that the respondent No.3, while issuing the license in favour of respondent No.4, has not taken into consideration the above aspect of the matter. It is stated that the aforementioned official respondent is not competent to issue the license. 4. On the other hand, stand of respondent No.3 is that the proposed spot where the respondent No.4 is to install the unit is one kilometer away from the existing Chakkies. Relying upon the report of the Patwari concerned, it has been stated that the production of wheat and maize is sufficient to cater to the requirement of all the units including that of private respondent. Relying upon the report of the Patwari concerned, it has been stated that the production of wheat and maize is sufficient to cater to the requirement of all the units including that of private respondent. It is further stated that the report was also called from the Tehsildar concerned and it was on the basis of the reports furnished by the revenue authorities that the license order has been issued in favour of the private respondent. It is contended that the total production of wheat in the area is 6350 qtls and that of maize is 1500 qtls. On the basis of said production, it is stated that there is necessity of installing one more Atta Chakki in the area. 5. Respondent No.4 in its objections has stated that the license has been granted in favour of the said respondent by the competent authority after taking into consideration the feasibility and the production of the raw material in the village concerned. It is stated that because of availability of modern agricultural facilities to the farmers the production of wheat and maize has increased in the area. It is thus stated that by opening another flour mill in the area for which approval has been granted by the competent authority, the petitioners’ right is not affected in any way. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Right to trade is a fundamental right as per Article 19 of the Constitution. The said right can be regulated by appropriate regulations issued from time to time by the authorities concerned. In the present case, the thrust of the argument is confined only to the extent that there is no sufficient availability of raw material in the area which could permit opening of another flour mill as already four units are functioning in the said area. This court may not be in a position to examine minutely the actual production that takes place in the area where the units are located. To arrive at a conclusion, reliance can only be placed on the reports of the persons who are experts in the field. The petitioners placing reliance on the report of Agriculture Department have stated that the total quantity of production per hectare should be the guiding factor to deal with the actual production of raw material in the area. To arrive at a conclusion, reliance can only be placed on the reports of the persons who are experts in the field. The petitioners placing reliance on the report of Agriculture Department have stated that the total quantity of production per hectare should be the guiding factor to deal with the actual production of raw material in the area. The report, of the Agriculture Department, however, is contradicted by the report of the Patwari and other concerned revenue authorities. The assessment made by the Agriculture department on this count can be based upon the data available with them but the actual production may not be the same and this, in my view, can be better determined by the patwari concerned. However, without going into this controversy, I do not find that this court has the power to determine the above aspect of the matter. 8. The petitioners in the present case have been carrying on the business which is a right available to them under Article 19 of the Constitution. However, this right has to be equally enforced in the case of the private respondent also and he being a competitor cannot be stopped from conducting his business by way of opening a new unit in the area. 9. So far as the contention of the petitioners that the order impugned has been passed by an incompetent authority is concerned, the respondents have stated that the power to issue license for opening a new Atta Chakki has been conferred upon the respondent No.3, in pursuance to an order passed by the respondent-State under the chairmanship of Minister concerned. It is thus stated that the aforementioned respondent is competent to grant the licence. In view of the said stand taken by respondents, the contention of the petitioners regarding the license having been issued by an incompetent authority is rejected. 10. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition is found to be without merit and is dismissed. 11. In view of the above, the connected contempt petition shall also stand dismissed. Rule issued is discharged.