ORDER : Since common issues are involved in these matters, the same are clubbed together and disposed of by this common order. The petitioners in these batch of matters have challenged the amendment to Section 72(1), 72(3) and the insertion of sub-section 4 in Section 72 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 (‘the Act’ for short) and the insertion of Rule 76-A of the Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Rules, 1968 (‘the Rules’ for short) vide notification dated 17.2.2014 and the consequential notices issued thereof. 2. The petitioners, the holders of composite licence issued by 2nd respondent under Rule 76(4) of the Rules to carry on business as Trader, Commission Agent, Exporter, Importer and stockist, are before this Court challenging the amendments aforesaid as ultra-vires the Constitution of India. 3. The learned senior counsel Sri S. Sreevatsa representing Sri Vishwakarmaraj Nayak for the petitioners contended that the petitioners being the holder of a valid licence as ‘trader’ valid upto 2018-19, by the present amendment is completely erased from existence in Section 72 (1) and 72(3) without their licence having been terminated in a manner known to law. 4. The Amendment carried to Section 72 (1), (2) and (3) of the Act omitting the term “Trader” would affect the licencees in as much as grant or renewal of the licences by the Market Committee for the use of any place in the market area for the sale of the notified agricultural produce. 5. Insertion of sub-section (4) to Section 72 of the Act mandates the existing licencee to obtain a fresh trader licence within a period of six months from the date of commencement of the Amended Act, 2013. The said amendments are ultra-vires the constitutional guarantees and ex-facie discriminatory and imposing unreasonable restrictions upon the petitioners’ rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 6. It was vehemently argued that exercise of the powers under Section 72(4) in establishing Respondent No.3 as the Direct Purchase Center gives monopoly in favour of a private party, which does not have the protection of Article 19(6)(ii). 6. It was vehemently argued that exercise of the powers under Section 72(4) in establishing Respondent No.3 as the Direct Purchase Center gives monopoly in favour of a private party, which does not have the protection of Article 19(6)(ii). The law cannot be used by the State for the benefit of a private person/body and in any arrangement in which under the guise of a monopoly, the State is permitted to enable a private party to make profit for themselves by carrying on business to the total exclusion of others is violative of Fundamental Rights. 7. The State has sought to canalise and create a monopoly with respect to trading in agricultural produce in favour of NSPOT, a private party, who are not the agents of the Government but are also authorised to carry on trade on their own account. Even in exercise of contractual powers of the State, the principles of Article 14 have to be followed to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism, which is conspicuously absent in the present case. 8. It was further argued that the accrued and vested rights of the petitioners’ licencees cannot be taken away by way of an Amendment contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules. It was contended that the petitioners’ licencees who had been given licences for trading, had a legitimate expectation that the proprietary rights that had already enured in their favour would continue, the sudden deprivation of a long term subsisting licence without any statutory provision for cancellation of the same under Section 72(4) of the Act goes to the very root of the propriety and constitutionality of the Amendment. 9. By the present omissions and insertions in Section 72 of the Act by way of an Amendment, the contract between the petitioners and the Respondent No.2 is sought to be re-written, which is illegal and ultra-vires the Act. It was argued that the Amendment to Rule 76-A compels persons like petitioner to virtually surrender their existing trader licence and obtain a fresh licence following due procedure prescribed therein. The imposition of the said Rule and the correspondent form is only to wipe out the petitioners and ensure that the Respondent No.3, which is a large corporate entity, creates a monopoly, which is violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 10. The imposition of the said Rule and the correspondent form is only to wipe out the petitioners and ensure that the Respondent No.3, which is a large corporate entity, creates a monopoly, which is violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 10. It was further argued that the notices issued by the Authorities in pursuant to the Amendments to Section 72 is unjustifiable. 11. Reliance was placed on the following Judgments:- (1) Rashbihari Panda etc, Vs State of Orissa, (1969) 1 SCC 414 (2) Association of Registration Plates Vs Union of India and others, (2004) 5 SCC 364 . 12. The State Government has refuted the contentions of the petitioners by filing statement of objections. Learned Additional Advocate General argued that the Government of Karnataka constituted a Committee to develop a comprehensive road map for reforms in agriculture marketing. The Committee after considering all the relevant aspects has made recommendations and thereafter adopted Karnataka Agricultural Marketing Policy 2013 vide order dated 04.09.2013. 13. Amongst others, one of the objectives of the said policy is reduction in and/or elimination of barriers to participation in markets to foster competition and efficient determination of price, linking the primary market in the State to the national market for the benefit of all stakeholders in the marketing chain. 14. It was initiated as an immediate measure, simplifying the licencing procedures with a single unified licence applicable for participants. 15. Conditions for restrict participation would be removed to increase competition in the auction of the agricultural produce. 16. Administrative processes with regard to licence would be simplified and automated for improved efficiency. 17. With these objects the policy was made to implement the policy amongst others, amendment bill No.11/2013 was introduced. The main objects and the reasons in the amendment bill is to the effect that the Government considers it necessary to carry out certain reforms in the Agricultural Marketing Sector with a view to provide expanded market access to the farmers and provide for improved marketing processes for greater transparency and avoiding delay in payment to farmers. Thereafter, the Amendment Act was given effect to. 18. Learned counsel contended that the 3rd Respondent is only a service provider to all the markets and is not a participant in the market. The policy of the Government is to increase competition and provide for equitable returns to all stakeholders in the marketing system. Thereafter, the Amendment Act was given effect to. 18. Learned counsel contended that the 3rd Respondent is only a service provider to all the markets and is not a participant in the market. The policy of the Government is to increase competition and provide for equitable returns to all stakeholders in the marketing system. The policy aims at increasing transparency in the operations of the market for the benefit of all. It is an electronic platform for the farmers and the stakeholders to carry on the e-market trade. 19. According to the learned counsel, Government vide order dated 06.11.2013 decided to set up a Special Purpose Vehicle in partnership with NSPOT, namely, NCDEX Spot Exchange Limited. The said Government order provided for an Empowered Committee to finalise a shareholder agreement to be concluded between Government and NSPOT on 23.12.2013. 20. For the incorporation of the Special Purpose Vehicle, Government vide order dated 06.01.2014 approved the name Rashtriya e-Market Services Private Limited as the name of the Special Purpose Vehicle and also approved other requirements for incorporation of a Company. Accordingly, the company was incorporated in Karnataka on 20.01.2014 and the Registrar of Companies in Karnataka has issued a certificate of incorporation for the Company. Government of Karnataka and NSPOT have both contributed equally (50% each) towards share capital of the Company. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka is the Chairman of the Company. The Company is enjoined to support existing markets, operate with cutting edge technology and be constantly adapting itself to international practices, blending public interest with the initiative of a private enterprise. 21. Further, it was contended that the constitutional validity of a provision can be challenged only on two grounds, namely (1) lack of legislative competency and (2) violation of any of the Fundamental Rights guarantied in part-3 of the Constitution or of any other constitutional provisions, to substantiate the same, the learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Greater Bombay Cooperative Bank Ltd Vs. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd and Others, (2007) 6 SCC 236 . In the absence of these essential factors, challenge made to the Amendment Act is perse illegal. 22. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd and Others, (2007) 6 SCC 236 . In the absence of these essential factors, challenge made to the Amendment Act is perse illegal. 22. Sri R.V. Nadagouda, Additional Advocate General further submitted that the challenge made to the Amendment Act deserves to be negated in the light of the order of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.38452-454/2014 (D.D.23.11.2016) wherein, the amendment challenged herein is held to be intra-vires, negating the arguments canvassed by the petitioners therein. 23. Accordingly, the subject matter involved in this writ petition being squarely covered by the Judgment of this Court, no further adjudication is required. 24. The learned counsel submitted that the amendment brought to Section 72 of the Act would necessarily assist the farmers or stakeholders to participate in the trade in a more efficient manner removing the barrier of market yards. It was argued that the Amendment Act would simplify the trade procedure in a market area, no requirement of furnishing the documents is applicable to a licencee carrying on trade at the time of the commencement of the Amendment Act. What is required is to get a fresh licence. To enable the licencee to trade in a larger area, online market provided under the Act brings transparency and facilitates the stakeholders/farmers to trade with better competition, no monopoly is created against Respondent No.3-Company to trade in the agricultural produces. It is only the platform created by the Respondent No.1 to facilitate the traders/farmers to carry on trade with a better opportunities and facilities. No Fundamental Rights of the citizen more particularly the traders-licencees are violated. 25. Respondent No.2-Committee has filed the statement of objections denying the contention of the petitioner inasmuch as petitioners/traders are ousted from carrying on their trading activity in terms of the licence granted to them. It is stated that by amendment to Section 72 of Act, the power of granting of license to trader has now been given to the Director of Agricultural Marketing or an Officer as authorised by him. The Amendment to Section 72 of the Act simplifies the licencing procedure and existing licencee were instructed to obtain a fresh trade licence, within a period of six months from the date of amendment. The Amendment to Section 72 of the Act simplifies the licencing procedure and existing licencee were instructed to obtain a fresh trade licence, within a period of six months from the date of amendment. While delegating the power of issuing unified licence to Assistant/Deputy Directors in the District, instructions were issued to the APMCs to refund the licence fee to traders for the remaining period of licence granted earlier, the procedure by which the traders may obtain a unified licence by submitting an application in the prescribed form along with documents prescribed therein. The Secretary of every APMC has been instructed to prepare statement of trader licences so converted along with the details of remaining period of validity of the licence and deposit a cheque/DD for the remaining period of licence with the concerned Assistant/Deputy Director of the District for necessary action. By these instructions, the requirement for an existing licencee to submit the other documents required under the Rules were dispensed with as the credentials of the licencee had already been vetted by the concerned APMC while granting the original licence. 26. Learned counsel Sri Amresh S. Roja appearing for Respondent No.3 – Company submitted that no relief is sought against the said respondent, except making vague allegations. Hence, all the Writ Petitions are not maintainable against the said respondent. Inviting the attention of the Court to Chapter 11 of the Agricultural Marketing Reforms Committee Report 2013, contended that summary of recommendations indicate interim arrangements for amending Section 72 of the Act to issue a licence to be a market participant without insisting upon having a local address and issue a licence based on bank guarantee and issuing single licence to trade across the State, amending Section 65 of the Act for rationalizing the market fee in line with these recommendations. 27. Learned counsel Sri Amresh S. Roja appearing for respondent No.3 filing the statement of objections denied the allegations made in the writ petition inasmuch as creating monopoly against this respondent excluding the farmers/traders. Similar submissions are made by the learned counsel, as that of the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. It was submitted that the 3rd respondent has set up electronic plat form in different parts of the state and implemented the Karnataka Agricultural Marketing Policy 2013 and received good response and succeeded in bringing transparency in the market. 28. It was submitted that the 3rd respondent has set up electronic plat form in different parts of the state and implemented the Karnataka Agricultural Marketing Policy 2013 and received good response and succeeded in bringing transparency in the market. 28. APMCs Tiptur, Arasikere and Tumkur were initially notified under Rule 91-O for Copra and APMC Chamarajanagara for turmeric. The services provided to this respondent to markets, including providing the electronic platform for price discovery has yielded good results and has been opted by many APMCs in the State without any murmur. 29. It is to achieve the objects set out in the Karnataka Agricultural Marketing Policy 2013, a special purpose vehicle in partnership with NSPOT, namely, NCDEX Spot Exchange Limited was set up. The Empowered Committee approved the shareholder agreement, which was concluded between Government and NSPOT on 23.12.2013. After other arrangement were completed for the incorporation of a Special Purpose Vehicle, the name Rashtriya e-Market Services Private Limited as the name of the Special Purpose Vehicle was finalised and also approved. Accordingly, the company was incorporated in Karnataka on 20.01.2014 and registered with the Registrar of Companies in Karnataka. Government of Karnataka and NSPOT have both contributed equally (50% each) towards share capital of the Company. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioners have not made out any grounds for the relief sought in the writ petition. 30. Adverting to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the question that arise for consideration is, Whether the amendment to Sections 72(1), 72(3) and the insertion of sub-section (4) to Section 72 of the Act and the insertion of Rule 76-A of the Rules are ultra-vires the Constitution of India? 31. It is pertinent to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. 32. Section 2(48) of the Act defines Trader as under: “(48) “Trader” means a person who buys notified agricultural produce either for himself or as agent of one or more persons for the purpose of selling, processing, manufacturing or for any other purpose, except for the purpose of domestic consumption.” 33. Section 72 of the Act deals with grant of licences. In Sections 72(1), 72(2) and 72(3), the word “trader” was omitted by Act No.5 of 2014 with effect from 4-1-2014. Section 72 of the Act deals with grant of licences. In Sections 72(1), 72(2) and 72(3), the word “trader” was omitted by Act No.5 of 2014 with effect from 4-1-2014. Sub-section (4) was inserted by Act No.5 of 2014 with effect from 4-1-2014 which reads thus: “(4) The Director of Agricultural Marketing or the Officer authorised by him may grant a trader license in such manner and in such form as may be prescribed to operate as trader in any of Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee yards/private markets in the State. The existing licensee shall obtain a fresh trader licence within a period of six months from the date of commencement of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development (Second Amendment) Act, 2013).” 34. Insertion of this Sub-section (4) to Section 72 of the Act was challenged in Writ Petition Nos.38452- 454/2014 and this Court, by an order dated 23.11.2016, upheld the constitutional validity of the said provision. In the light of the said judgment, it can be held that insertion of Sub-section (4) to Section 72 of the Act is intra-vires the Constitution. However, in the present set of petitions, in addition to the insertion of Sub-section (4) to Section 72 of the Act, the petitioners have challenged the amendment effected to Sections 72(1) and 72(3) of the Act in omitting the word ‘trader’ coupled with the introduction of Rule 76-A of the Rules vide notification dated 17.02.2014 issued by the Government of Karnataka – respondent No.1. 35. The main grounds of challenge are that monopoly created in favour of a private partner-respondent No.3, parting the pre-existing rights of the traders, re-writing the contract, which is wholly unconstitutional and secondly the licences issued to the traders/petitioners being valid as on date; existing licence not been cancelled; insisting for fresh licence by inserting Sub-section (4) to Section 72 of the Act is unjustifiable. The fulcrum of dispute mainly revolves on these points. 36. To analyze whether there is any parting of preexisting rights of the traders to a private partner, it is essential to examine the rights and powers of the private partner-respondent No.3, a company floated to implement the agricultural marketing policy. The fulcrum of dispute mainly revolves on these points. 36. To analyze whether there is any parting of preexisting rights of the traders to a private partner, it is essential to examine the rights and powers of the private partner-respondent No.3, a company floated to implement the agricultural marketing policy. The Government order dated 06.01.2014 indicates that a committee was constituted to suggest reforms in the agricultural marketing sector and identification of necessary interventions by harnessing the advances made in the field of information technology to establish networked markets. It appears, Government considered the report of the committee and vide order dated 4.9.2013 had adopted a policy for agricultural marketing in the state to create a market structure that amongst others, is transparent and equitable, distinguishes quality and variety, disseminates relevant market information to all market participants, fosters competition in buying for efficient determination of price, links markets in the state to national markets, adopts and leverages technology at all levels for efficient operations and provides access to institutional finance to all market participants. 37. It is in order to implement the Agricultural Marketing Policy and bring into effect the reform measures outlined, the Government vide order dated 06.11.2013 has set up a Special Purpose Vehicle, with the NCDEX Spot Exchange Limited (NSPOT) as the private partner with an authorised and paid up capital of Rs.10 crores (Rupees Ten crores only). Government and NCDEX Spot Exchange Limited (NSPOT), the private partner shall hold 50% each of the paid up capital of the Special Purpose Vehicle. Government shall subscribe to Rs.5 crores (Rupees Five crores only) as its share in the paid up capital of the private company to be incorporated for the said purpose. Government and NCDEX Spot Exchange Limited have concluded a Shareholder Agreement on 23.12.2013 outlining the roles and obligations of the partners, their responsibilities and all related matters for the successful implementation of reforms in the sector and for the management of the Special Purpose Vehicle. 38. To incorporate the Special Purpose Vehicle as a private limited company under the Companies Act, 2013 officers were authorised to undertake all activities necessary for that purpose in terms of the Government order dated 06.01.2014. 38. To incorporate the Special Purpose Vehicle as a private limited company under the Companies Act, 2013 officers were authorised to undertake all activities necessary for that purpose in terms of the Government order dated 06.01.2014. As per the said Government order, the name of the private limited company to be incorporated shall be “Rashtriya e-Market Services Private Limited” or such other name as the Registrar of Companies in Karnataka may approve. The officers were authorised to be the first directors of the Special Purpose Vehicle to be incorporated. It is clear that a special purpose vehicle was created to fulfill narrow, specific or temporary objectives. Special Purpose Vehicles are typically used by companies/Government to isolate them from financial risk. 39. In terms of Articles of Association of Rashtriya E-Market Services Private Limited, nominees of Government are normally, the Chief Secretary to the Government, the Secretary to Government in charge of the department of Cooperation (which shall include the Principal Secretary or the Additional Chief Secretary to Government in charge of the department of Cooperation) and the Director of Agricultural Marketing shall be the nominees of the Government on the Board of the Company. For any reason if it is unable to nominate the above officers as Directors, the Government may nominate any of its other officers as a director on the Board in their place by informing the Company in writing. 40. Specific powers given to Board of Directors are enumerated as per sub-clauses (A) to (V) of clause 80 of Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association. Sub-clause (O) and (P) of clause 80 reads thus:- “O. To distribute by way of bonus amongst the staff of the Company a share in the profits of the Company, and to give to any officer or other person employed by the Company a commission on the profits of any particular business or transaction and to charge such bonus or commission as part of the expenses of the Company. P. To provide for the welfare of employees and working Board of Directors of the Company and their dependants by grant of money, pensions, allowances, bonus, ex-gratia or other payments or by creating and from time to time subscribing or contributing to provident fund gratuity, superannuation fund and by providing or subscribing or contributing towards education, recreation, hospitals and dispensaries, medical and other facilities and attendances.” 41. Placing much emphasis on these two clauses, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Government of Karnataka has executed the Service Level Agreement with the Company Rashtriya E-Market Services Private Limited in order to benefit a private partner, which is against the interest of the traders. The said arguments cannot be countenanced for the reason that in clause 80 of the Articles of Association, where specific powers are given to Board of Directors, clause (A to V) provides different powers. It is a joint venture between the Government of Karnataka and the Company Rashtriya E-Market Services Private Limited. 42. The object and purpose of the Company is,- 1. To establish, operate, manage and provide for specialised, advanced and electronic trading platform facilitating trading in all kinds of commodities, goods and services especially agricultural, floricultural, horticultural, forest, dairy, poultry, marine and other agro based produces and products in spot markets and to undertake, provide for, facilitate, assist, regulate and manage dealings in commodities thereof including bidding, broking, spot trading, hedging, auctions, clearing and settlement thereof. 2. To establish, operate, manage and provide for all commodities trading related facilities and services like, quality control, assaying, grading, testing, certification, weighing securing accreditation, processing, storage, cold storage, warehousing, transport, bulk handling of commodities and to provide consultancy and advisory services thereof to various stakeholders including, Governments, APMCs, growers produces, dealers, trades, importers, and exporters in commodities. 3. To establish and develop secondary markets for trading in commodities and facilitate transparent price discovery mechanism for various commodities with an object of ensuring better price to growers, producers and consumers. 43. In addition to the main objects of the Company, incidental or ancillary objects to the attainment of the main objects are provided under clause III(b) of the Memorandum of Association. In order to achieve the objects aforesaid, if any incentive is given to the staff of the Company out of the profits of the Company and a welfare measure is taken to provide for the welfare of employees and working Board of Directors of the Company and their dependants by grant of money, pensions, allowances, bonus, ex-gratis etc., it cannot be construed that it is the monopoly created to a private partner, more particularly when the share of the NCDEX Spot Exchange Limited (NSPOT) and the Government of Karnataka is 50% each. It cannot be said that entire benefit of Respondent No.3 does not enure to the benefit of the State. As monopoly is not created in favour of Respondent No.3, violation of Article 19(6) of the Constitution does not arise. 44. The Karnataka Agricultural Marketing Policy, 2013 indicates regulatory and legislative environment providing for reviewal of the Act to facilitate the aforesaid policy objectives and initiatives and to create a distinct, level playing regulatory environment for the transparent and efficient functioning of agricultural markets in the state. It is in order to achieve this object, the amendment was effected to Section 72 of the Act. 45. In the case of Rashbihari Panda, supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the powers exercised by the State of Orissa under Section 10 of Orissa Kendu (Control of Trade) Act, 1961 decided the question whether the machinery devised by the Government for sale of Kendu leaves in which they had acquired a monopoly to trade was violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. 46. It was held that the scheme evolved by the Government was violative of fundamental rights under Article 14 & 19(1) (g) because the schemes gave rise to a monopoly in the trade in Kendu leaves to certain traders and singled out other traders and new entrants for discriminatory treatment. 47. It was a case where there was no reasonable exclusions of traders of Kendu leaves from carrying on business. By Section 3 of the Act no person other than (a) the Government; (b) an Officer of Government authorised in that behalf; (c) an agent in respect of the unit in which the leaves have grown, shall purchase or transport Kendu leaves. Section 10 provided that: “Kendu leaves purchased by Government or by their Officers or agents under this Act shall be sold or otherwise disposed of in such manner as Government may direct.” Government invited offers for advance purchasers from persons who had purchased Kendu leaves from individual units during the year 1967 and had not committed default in payment of the dues. This method adopted by the State Government was challenged. This method adopted by the State Government was challenged. The scheme of selling Kendu leaves to selected purchasers or of accepting tenders only from a specific class of purchasers or of accepting tenders only from a specified class of purchasers was not “integrally and essentially” connected with the creation of monopoly was held not protected by Article 19(6)(ii) of the Constitution. It was observed that Section 10 of Orissa Kendu Leaves (Control of Trade) Act, 1961 leaves the method of sale or disposal of Kendu to the Government as they think fit. But, it is not given to the Government thereby to create a monopoly in favour of 3rd parties from their monopoly. 48. Similarly, in the case of Association of Registration Plates supra, in the context of entrusting of manufacture and supply of high security vehicle registration plates (HSVRP) in a State to a single licence plates manufacturer, it was held that the procedure adopted by the State Governments in selecting a single manufacturer is a monopoly created in his favour and all owners of vehicles would be compelled to purchase HSVRPs from him or his dealers. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the State Governments in selecting a single manufacturer was held to be violative of Article 19(1)(g) and so accordingly, the order was struck down. 49. In the circumstances aforesaid, it was held that the State is free to create a monopoly in favour of itself. However, the entire benefit arising therefrom must enure for the benefit of the State and it should not be used as a cloak for conferring private benefit upon a limited class of persons, but in the present case no such monopoly is created in favour of the private party-NSPOT/Respondent No.3. No traders are prohibited from continuing trading activity in the market yard/market area. 50. Respondent No.3 has set up an electronic platform in different parts of the State to implement the Karnataka Agricultural Marketing Policy 2013 in order to bring the transparency in the market. No traders are prohibited from continuing trading activity in the market yard/market area. 50. Respondent No.3 has set up an electronic platform in different parts of the State to implement the Karnataka Agricultural Marketing Policy 2013 in order to bring the transparency in the market. Respondent No.3 private party provided services to market in order to provide services to markets, including providing the electronic platform for price discovery; creating an enabling environment and facilitate the farmers to avail pledge loans to avoid distress sale; effective dissemination of market price information enabling the farmer to know the prevailing price of the products, before he decides to sell; simplified processes and online timely payment to the farmers account; to provide alternate and safe storage options through accreditation of warehouses and encourage wearhouses based sales enabling farmers to sell from accredited wearhouses; enabling the farmers to decide when to sell the produce and what price, with a right to reject the price offered. 51. The 3rd respondent is in no way engaged in the trading activity. To facilitate the farmers/traders to conduct the trading activity in a better manner, Government of Karnataka has floated the company with private partner and entered into an agreement with a company. 50% share capital of the company remains with the Government of Karnataka. It is to achieve the object of the policy of 2013, the scheme is floated. Hence, the Judgment referred to above by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 52. These are purely policy decisions taken by the State Government and, while so, it has examined the benefits the projects would bring into the State and to the farmers of the State. It is well settled that non-floating of tenders or absence of public auction of invitation alone is not a sufficient reason to characterise the action of a public authority as either arbitrary or unreasonable. The Courts have always held that it is open to the State and the authorities to take economic and management decision depending upon the exigencies of a situation guided by appropriate financial policy notified in public interest. [Vide Pathan Mohammed Sukman Rehmatkhan Vs State of Gujarat & others in SLP No. 32507/2013 (D.D.22.11.2013).] 53. In P.M. Ashwathanarayana Setty and others Vs. [Vide Pathan Mohammed Sukman Rehmatkhan Vs State of Gujarat & others in SLP No. 32507/2013 (D.D.22.11.2013).] 53. In P.M. Ashwathanarayana Setty and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, reported in 1989 Supp (1) SCC 696, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “…the State enjoys the widest latitude where measures of economic regulation are, concerned. These measures for fiscal and economic regulation involve an evaluation of diverse and quite often conflicting economic criteria and adjustment and balancing of various conflicting social and economic values and interests. It is for the State to decide what economic and social policy it should pursue and what discriminations advance those social and economic policies. In view of the inherent complexity of these fiscal adjustments, courts give a larger discretion to the Legislature in the matter of its preferences of economic and social policies and effectuate the chosen system in all possible and reasonable ways. [187G-H; 188A-B] East India Tobacoo Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1963] 1 SCR 411; The State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd. Ahmedabad, [1974] 3 SCR 764 referred to. (7) The lack of perfection in a legislative measure does not necessarily imply its unconstitutionality. It is rightly said that no economic measure has yet been devised which is free from all discriminatory impact and that is such a complex arena in which no perfect alternatives exist, the court does well not to impose too rigorous a standard of criticism. under the equal protection clause reviewing fiscal services..” In R.S. Joshi, Sales Tax Officer, Gujarath and others Vs. Ajit Mills Limited and another, (1977) 4 SCC Hon’ble Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, speaking for the Bench held: “the true key to constitutional construction is to view the equity of the statute and sense the social mission of the law, language permitting, against the triune facets of justice high-lighted in the Preamble to the Paramount Parchment, read with a spacious signification of the listed entries concerned. If then we feed this programme into the judicial cerebration with the presumption of constitutionality superadded, the result tells us whether the measure is ultra vires or not. If then we feed this programme into the judicial cerebration with the presumption of constitutionality superadded, the result tells us whether the measure is ultra vires or not. The doctrine of ancillary and incidental powers is also embraced within this scheme of interpretation.” Benjamin N. Cardozo in his Lecture II – the Methods of History, Tradition and Sociology observed thus:- “I do not mean of course, that Judges are commissioned to set aside existing rules at pleasure in favour of any other set of rules which they may hold to be expedient or wise. I mean that when they are called upon to say how far existing rules are to be extended or restricted, they must let the welfare of society fix the path, its direction and its distance” 54. In (2003) 11 SCC 146 in the case of Saurabh Chaudri (Dr) and others Vs. Union of India and others it is held as under:- “64. The sole question, therefore, is as to whether reservation by way of institutional preference is ultra-vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We think not. Article 14, it will bear repetition to state, forbids class legislation but does not forbid reasonable classification, which means: (1) must be based on reasonable and intelligible differentia; and (2) such differentia must be on rational basis. 65. Hence, we may also notice the argument, whether institutional a reservation fulfils the aforementioned criteria or not must be judged on the following: 1. There is presumption of constitutionality. 2. The burden of proof is upon the writ petitioners as they have questioned the constitutionality of the provisions. 3. There is a presumption as regards the State’s power on the extent of its legislative competence. 4. Hardship of a few cannot be the basis for determining the validity of any statute.” 55. It is well settled legal principle that the Constitutional validity of an Act can be challenged only on two grounds viz., (i) lack of legislative competence; and (ii) violation of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution or any other constitutional provisions. In State of A.P. Vs. McDowell & Co (1996) 3 SCC 709 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that except the above two grounds, there is no third ground on the basis of which the law made by the competent legislature can be invalidated. In State of A.P. Vs. McDowell & Co (1996) 3 SCC 709 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that except the above two grounds, there is no third ground on the basis of which the law made by the competent legislature can be invalidated. This view was reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. Vs. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd. & Others, (2007) 6 SCC 236 . 56. In CST Vs. Radhakrishnan, (1979) 2 SCC 249 , it is held that while considering the validity of a statute the presumption is always in favour of the constitutionality and the burden is upon the person who attacks it to show that there has been transgression of constitutional principles. It is always to be presumed that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates the need of its own people and that discrimination, if any, is based on adequate grounds and considerations. The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of the incumbent who challenges it. 57. The petitioners herein have failed to establish the two grounds; (i) of lack of legislative competency and (ii) violation of any of the fundamental rights or any other constitutional provisions in effecting the amendments challenged herein, except the monopoly aspect. In the light of the Judgments referred to above, it can be held that neither any monopoly is created in favour of respondent No.3 much less a private partner to carry on trading activities discriminating the petitioners/traders, nor the pre-existing rights of the petitioners/traders to carry on the trading activities is violated affecting their fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The competency of the legislature to amend the Act cannot be disputed. 58. As could be seen, prior to amendment of Section 72, Marketing Committees were vested with the powers of granting a licence to the Commission agents, traders, importers, exporters, processors, ginners, pressers, stockists, crushers etc, to operate within the respective market yards. Being licence granted by the APMC, the licence was authorised to operate within the jurisdictional area of that Market Committee. In case if a lincencee wish to operate in an area falling within the jurisdiction of another APMC, it was required to obtain further licence. Thus, it was mandatory to take as many licences as number of markets, where one wanted to carry on business. In case if a lincencee wish to operate in an area falling within the jurisdiction of another APMC, it was required to obtain further licence. Thus, it was mandatory to take as many licences as number of markets, where one wanted to carry on business. In order to eliminate these type of barriers, a unified licence scheme was necessary to facilitate traders in different market yards of the State. Hence, sub-section (4) of Section 72 of the Act was inserted to provide for a simplified single unified licence for all participants as contemplated under the Policy. 59. The said sub-section (4) of Section 72 of the Act has enabled the Director of Agricultural Marketing or an Officer authorised by him to grant a trader licence to operate as a trade in any of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee yards in the State. Thus, amendment to Section 72 simplifies the licencing procedure and existing licencee are now instructed to obtain a fresh trade licence, within a period of six months from the date of amendment. 60. It is to be noted that as set out in the statement of objections filed by the Committee, while delegating the power of issuing unified licence to Assistant/Deputy Directors in the District, instructions were issued to the APMCs to refund the licence fee to the traders for the remaining period of licence granted earlier, the procedure by which the traders may obtain a unified licence by submitting an application in the prescribed form along with documents prescribed therein. The Secretary of every APMC has been instructed to prepare statement of trader licences so converted along with the details of remaining period of validity of the licence and deposit a cheque/DD for the remaining period of licence with the concerned Assistant/Deputy Director of the District for necessary action. 61. By these instructions, it appears the requirements for an existing licencee to submit the documents required under the Rule was dispensed with, as the credentials of the licencee had already been vetted by the concerned APMC while granting the original licence. Thus, all licences that were in existence as on the date of commencement of the amendment stand converted as a unified licence under the Act. 62. Thus, all licences that were in existence as on the date of commencement of the amendment stand converted as a unified licence under the Act. 62. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that during the existence of the licences, the petitioners are compelled to apply for fresh licence with additional documents, etc which would cause hardship and inconvenience to the traders is wholly misconceived. There is no termination of contract as such by the amendment brought into Section 72, but it converts the existing licences into unified licences. The arguments of the petitioners that the existing licencees/traders are wiped out from the business is wholly misconceived. Even assuming any hardship is caused to the petitioners which is not uncommon in the transitional period, that itself would not be a ground to invalidate the law. It is not the basis for determining the validity of a statute. 63. Rule 76-A of the Rules provides for grant of a unified traders licence, which allows a trader to carry on business in any market in the State. In view of the licence granted under Rule 76-A of the Rules, any licencee can purchase or sell a notified agricultural produce in any market in the State and the same is in confirmity with Section 8(2) of the Act. The unified licence enables a licencee to carry on business be it a purchaser, seller, stockist, etc in any market yard in the State. 64. Thus, it can be held that the amendment to Section 72(1) & (3) of omitting the phrase ‘trader’ and inserting sub-section (4) to Section 72 and Rules 76A of Rules is in order to facilitate the farmers and traders with an electronic platform bringing more transparency and immediate payment. Neither any fundamental rights of the petitioners are violated nor any discrimination is caused to the petitioners in amending the provisions. For the reasons aforesaid, writ petitions fail. Accordingly, stand dismissed.