JUDGMENT : R. Subramanian, J. Challenge in these writ appeals is to the order of the learned single Judge dated 09.10.2018 made in a batch of writ petitions which sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from their men or agents from preventing the appellants from doing retail vending flower business at Badrian Street, George Town, Chennai-1. 2. The writ petitions were dismissed by the learned single Judge with the following directions:- "27. This being the factum of the case, this Court has no hesitation in passing the following orders:- (i) The relief as such sought for in all these writ petitions stand rejected. (ii) The respondents are directed to lock and seal the premises of the whole sale traders including the premises of the writ petitioners in Badrian Street, George Town, Chennai-1 within a period of 48 hours from the date and time of the receipt of the copy of this order through the official website of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. (iii) The respondents are directed to take videograph of the implementation of the above directions. (iv) The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Corporation is directed to provide Police Protection for the competent officials for lock and seal the premises of the whole sale traders in Badrian Street, George Town, Chennai-1. (v) The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Chennai-7, is directed to install a Police booth in the vicinity of Badrian Street to ensure that no further wholesale trade business is allowed either by the writ petitioners or by any other vendors. (vi) The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Chennai 7, is directed to intensify the Police Patrolling in that locality till the normalcy arrived in that locality. (vii) The Inspector of Police, C-1, Flower Bazaar Police Station, Chennai is directed to continue the investigation in respect of the FIR registered and proceed with the prosecution by following the procedures as contemplated. (viii) In the event of any such further continuance of wholesale business by breaking open the official lock and seal in that locality, the Inspector of Police shall register complaints and prosecute the offenders by following the procedures as contemplated under law." Aggrieved, the appellants have come forward with these writ appeals. 3. (viii) In the event of any such further continuance of wholesale business by breaking open the official lock and seal in that locality, the Inspector of Police shall register complaints and prosecute the offenders by following the procedures as contemplated under law." Aggrieved, the appellants have come forward with these writ appeals. 3. The case of the appellants before the writ court is that they are all doing retail flower vending business in small shops situate at Badrian Street, George Town, Chennai-1. According to them, the respondents had termed them as wholesale traders and are seeking to prevent them from carrying on the business purportedly in exercise of their powers under Section 21 of the Tamil Nadu Specified Commodities Markets (Regulation and Location) Act, 1996 (for brevity, 'the Act'). Contending that the provisions of the said Act bar only wholesale trading in areas outside the specified market area as notified under the said Act, the appellants would seek the aforesaid relief of mandamus. 4. The respondents resisted the writ petitions contending that all these appellants are doing wholesale business in flower outside the market area as notified under the said Act. Wholesale trading in an area outside the notified market area is prohibited and as such, the respondents have power to prevent the appellants from carrying on wholesale business in an area outside the market area particularly, Badrian Street, George Town, Chennai-1. It is also contended that this Court had passed several directions in respect of the regulation of wholesale business in George Town area. It is the further contention of the respondents that the Koyambedu wholesale market was constructed only with a view to decongest the George Town area where wholesale trading in perishable goods was carried on earlier. Under the provisions of the Act, the wholesale traders are required to register with the market committee and the market committee has allotted alternative accommodation for such registered wholesale traders in the new market area developed at Koyambedu. 5. Relying upon the directions of this Court in W.A.No.693 of 2011, the respondents would contend that the appellants who are among 130 traders are actually engaged in wholesale business in flower and therefore, they are justified in taking action against them for discontinuance of the wholesale trade. 6. 5. Relying upon the directions of this Court in W.A.No.693 of 2011, the respondents would contend that the appellants who are among 130 traders are actually engaged in wholesale business in flower and therefore, they are justified in taking action against them for discontinuance of the wholesale trade. 6. It is also claimed that in W.P.No.1589 of 2012 filed by the Chennai Retail Flower Merchants Association, this Court while dismissing the writ petition had held that all these vendors are carrying on wholesale trade and this Court had upheld the finding of the officials of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority that these persons are doing wholesale business. Therefore, according to the respondents, the provisions of the Act are being implemented only pursuant to the directions already issued by this Court. 7. The learned single Judge who heard the writ petitions, by a common order, disposed of the writ petitions with the directions stated above. Aggrieved, the appellants are before us by way of intra court appeals. 8. We have heard Mr. S. Sadasharam, Mr. R. Nalliyappan, Mr. N. Manoharan, Mr. R. Veeramani, Mr. K. Balu, Mr. T.S. Kani, Mr. K. Sivakumar, Mr. V. Karthick, Senior Counsel for M/s.K.V.Law Firm, Mr. V. Nicholas and Mr. E.A. Dinesh learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. P.H. Aravind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. S. Thiruvengadam, Mr. J. Pothiraj, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr. R. Arunmozhi, Standing Counsel for the Chennai Corporation in all the writ appeals. 9. Some of these appeals came up for admission before us on 11.10.2018. We had heard the learned counsels for the appellants as well as Mr. P.H. Aravind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General on the said date and it was agreed by all the learned counsels that the writ appeals themselves could be disposed of. Since several other learned counsels represented that they had also filed appeals, we had directed the matters to be listed along with connected appeals on 12.10.2018 and on the said date, we had heard all the learned counsels and while reserving orders, we had passed the following interim order:- "7. Considering the above submissions, we pass the following interim order:- (i) Thiru.S.Yesudas, Senior Estate Officer, in charge of CMDA is present in court. Considering the above submissions, we pass the following interim order:- (i) Thiru.S.Yesudas, Senior Estate Officer, in charge of CMDA is present in court. We direct him to de-seal all the premises that were sealed pursuant to the order of the learned single Judge, forthwith. (ii) It is made clear that none of the appellants would be allowed to carry on wholesale business in the premises. (iii) The officers of the CMDA and Chennai Corporation are required to monitor the business that is being carried on and if any of the appellants are found to be carrying on wholesale business, the officers shall report the same to this Court and action for contempt of court will automatically follow; (iv) Some of the appellants have filed suits before the City Civil Court, Chennai, challenging the very same notice which was impugned in the writ petitions. The learned counsel, Thiru.K.Sivakumar, who is the counsel on record for the plaintiff in those civil suits has filed a memo agreeing to withdraw all the suits. In view of the said memo, the suits filed by the appellants challenging the notice impugned in the writ petitions, O.S.No.1401 of 2012 and other connected suits would stand dismissed; (v) None of the appellants and other vendors shall have weighing machines with weighing capacity of more than 2 kg in their shops. If any vendor is found violating the same, the officials of CMDA or Chennai Corporation are entitled to seize the scales." 10. Thereafter, it appears that another batch of writ appeals in W.A.Nos.2393 to 2399 of 2018 had come up before another Division Bench on 09.11.2018 and the Division Bench had dismissed the writ appeals. Unfortunately, neither the learned counsels appearing for the appellants in those appeals nor the learned counsel for the respondents thought it fit to inform us about the said disposal. On learning about the said dismissal, we had called for the said judgment of the Division Bench dated 09.11.2018 and we have perused the same. We find that the scope of the provisions of the enactment namely, the Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1996 particularly Section 21(8) of the Act had not been brought to the notice of the Division Bench which disposed of the appeals on 09.11.2018. We find that the scope of the provisions of the enactment namely, the Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1996 particularly Section 21(8) of the Act had not been brought to the notice of the Division Bench which disposed of the appeals on 09.11.2018. The common judgment does not reflect that the fact that we had reserved orders in similar case was brought to the knowledge of the Division Bench. 11. Be that as it may. Having perused the common judgment of the Division Bench dated 09.11.2018, with great respect, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the views of the Division Bench expressed therein. However, since we are taking a different view, we record our reasons for differing from the views of the Division Bench and we refer the matter to a Larger Bench to decide the questions framed by us hereinafter. 12. Drawing our attention to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1996, the learned counsels appearing for the appellants would submit that the authorities namely, the market committee has undoubtedly the power to prevent wholesale trade in an area outside the market area but at the same time, the Act does not empower the authorities to lock and seal the premises. Reliance is placed upon by the learned counsel for the appellants on Section 21(8)(c) of the Act which empowers the authorities to prevent or stop carrying of wholesale trade in a place other than the notified market area. The contention of the learned counsels appearing for the appellants is that the authorities do not have power to dispossess the traders from the premises which they are occupying either as owners or as tenants. According to them, the attempt of the authorities to lock and seal of the premises would amount to dispossession and the same will be beyond the powers conferred under the Act apart from in infringing the constitutional right to property and trade. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that all these appellants are engaged in retail trading only which is not prohibited activity under the provisions of the Act. 14. Mr. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that all these appellants are engaged in retail trading only which is not prohibited activity under the provisions of the Act. 14. Mr. P.H. Aravind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the appellants cannot be allowed to contend that they are retail traders inasmuch as a Division Bench as well as the learned single Judge of this Court, on earlier occasions, had found that the appellants are engaged in wholesale trading. Drawing our attention to various provisions of the Act, Mr. P.H. Aravind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the fact that the appellants are engaged in wholesale trade cannot be disputed. 15. We have considered the rival submissions. 16. At the outset, it should be stated that carrying on wholesale business in any of the notified commodities outside the notified market area is prohibited under the Act. The Act also provides for penal consequences in the event of violation, apart from empowering the authorities concerned namely, the market committee to take action to prevent persons from carrying on wholesale trade. Therefore, the power of the authorities to take action would depend on the determination of the factual question, that is as to whether the appellants are carrying on wholesale trade in a notified commodity namely, flower. Admittedly, the area in question namely, Badrian street, is not a regular market owned by the municipal corporation. The buildings therein are private buildings which are let out to various people by the owners. Therefore, unless it is found that there is a violation of the provisions of the Act, the appellants cannot be evicted or their premises cannot be sealed by the authorities. 17. Section 2(7) of the Act defines "market area" and it reads as follows:- "(7)" "market area" means any area declared under Section 4 to be a market area." 13. Therefore, unless it is found that there is a violation of the provisions of the Act, the appellants cannot be evicted or their premises cannot be sealed by the authorities. 17. Section 2(7) of the Act defines "market area" and it reads as follows:- "(7)" "market area" means any area declared under Section 4 to be a market area." 13. Sub-section (14) of Section 2 defines 'wholesale trade' which reads as follows:- (14) "wholesale trade" means sale or purchase of any specified commodity for purposes other than direct consumption or use by the purchaser, and shall include holding of stocks or warehousing of such specified commodity at any place in the market area (but does not include any sale or purchase by any primary producer or retail trader, as the case may be, of such specified commodity); and any such seller, buyer, holder of stock or warehouse-keeper shall be deemed to be a "wholesale trader". 18. Section 3 of the Act provides for declaration of market area and establishment of market and market committee. 19. It is not in dispute that a notification as contemplated under Section 3 of the Act has been issued constituting a wholesale trade in Koyambedu. 20. Section 20 of the Act requires wholesale traders to register with the market committee and the wholesale traders so registered are provided with accommodation in the market area by the market committee. 21. Section 21 prohibits any person from carrying on wholesale trade in the market area without a licence to be granted by the market committee. 22. 20. Section 20 of the Act requires wholesale traders to register with the market committee and the wholesale traders so registered are provided with accommodation in the market area by the market committee. 21. Section 21 prohibits any person from carrying on wholesale trade in the market area without a licence to be granted by the market committee. 22. Section 21(8) which prohibits the municipal authority from establishing or authorising or allowing continuance of wholesale trade at any place in the local area including the market area as a market or a place to carry on wholesale trade in respect of any specified commodity and the said provision reads as follows:- "8(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no local authority, including the Madras City Municipal Corporation constituted under the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, having jurisdiction over the market area, shall, on and after the notified date, establish authorise or continue, or allow to be established, authorised or continued, any place in the local area including the market area as a market or a place to carry on the wholesale trade in respect of any specified commodity and any permission or licence already granted by such local authority shall stand cancelled on the notified date. (b) Upon such cancellation of any permission or licence, if the holder of such permission or licence refuses to discontinue his wholesale trade in respect of any specified commodity in the place referred to in clause (a), the market committee may, by notice in writing, direct such person, within a period of one month or such further period as may be specified therein, to stop carrying on the wholesale trade in such place. (c) If any direction given under clause (b) is not complied with, within the time specified in the notice, the market committee may, without prejudice to any penalty that may be imposed for any contravention of the provisions of this section, have such direction carried into effect at its cost and have the amount thereof recovered from the defaulter in the same manner as arrears of land revenue. (Emphasis Supplied) (d) Upon such cancellation of any permission or licence, the holder of such permission or licence shall not be entitled to claim and receive any compensation, but shall be entitled to claim and receive such amount towards refund of the fees paid by him as is proportional to the unexpired period of such permission or licence." 23. A reading of sub-section (8) of Section 21 makes it clear that wholesale trade in specified commodities outside the market area is not permitted. The authority namely, the market committee has got power to require a person who is found to be carrying on wholesale trade in a notified commodity to stop the said business within a period of one month or such further period as may be specified therein, to stop carrying on business in wholesale trade in such place. Clause (c) of sub-section (8) of Section 21 empowers the authority to impose any penalty and also enforce such direction to stop carrying on business in wholesale trade of notified commodities. 24. Section 47 of the Act provides for penalties. Section 47 reads as follows:- "47. Penalties (1) Any person who- (a) evades the payment of any fee or other amount due from him by or under this Act, or (b) when required by or under this Act to make any statement or furnish any information, makes any statement or furnishes any information which he knows or has reasonable cause to believe to be false, or not true, in any material particular, or (c) prevents or obstructs inspection of vehicles, boat, or other conveyance carrying or believed to be carrying any specified commodity or verification, search or seizure by any officer or servant of the market committee, or (d) contravenes any of the provisions of section 21, or false to obtain a licence for the wholesale trade of any specified commodity as required by or under this Act or any of the terms and conditions of any such licence, shall on conviction, be punishable with fine which shall not be less than five hundred rupees, but may extend to two thousand and five hundred rupees in the case of a continuing contravention, with a further fine which may extend to five hundred rupees for every day during which the contravention is continued after conviction therefor. (2) Whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or any rule or any by-law shall, if no other penalty is provided for such contravention elsewhere in this Act, or in the rules or by-laws, on conviction be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand and five hundred rupees." 25. A reading of the above provision would make it clear that the Act provides for prosecution for contravention of the Act and levy of find for such contraventions. The offences are triable by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of 1st class. Admittedly, no such proceeding has been initiated under Section 47 against the appellants. 26. The power of the authorities to take action in case of violation is not in dispute. The basis of the case of the appellants before us is that all these appellants are carrying on only retail trade in flower and they cannot be termed as wholesale traders. Some of the appellants would rely upon the Commissioner's report filed in civil suits that were filed by them which goes to show that the appellants are carrying on only retail business selling flowers to individual customers. The Chief Executive Officer, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority has issued notices to individual appellants on 06.10.2015. The said individual notices proceed on the assumption that the notices are carrying on wholesale business. Admittedly, the exercise, that is, factual determination as to whether the appellants are carrying on business in wholesale or retail trade has not been undertaken before the issuance of the said notices. 27. Mr. P.H. Aravind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General would invite our attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in General Merchant Association rep by Secretary and Treasurer and others v. The Corporation of Chennai, rep by its Commissioner, Chennai reported in 2000 (III) CTC 565 in support of his contention that carrying on wholesale business outside the notified area is prohibited under the provisions of the Act. He would draw our attention to paragraphs 53 to 55 of the said judgment wherein the Division Bench has observed as follows:- "53. It is not in dispute that the Koyambedu wholesale market has been notified as a wholesale market. There is no challenge to the validity of the said enactment. He would draw our attention to paragraphs 53 to 55 of the said judgment wherein the Division Bench has observed as follows:- "53. It is not in dispute that the Koyambedu wholesale market has been notified as a wholesale market. There is no challenge to the validity of the said enactment. AH that the respondents have required under the provisions of the Act is to locate the wholesale trade in the Koyambedu market as it has been declared as the wholesale market. The expression wholesale trade has been defined in section 2(14). The definition reads thus:- "."Whole sale trade" means sale or purchase of any specified commodity for purposes other than direct consumption or use by the purchaser and shall include holding of stocks or warehousing of such specified commodity at any place in the market are (but does not include any sale or purchase by any primary producer or retail trader, as the case may be, of such specified commodity); and any such seller, buyer, holder of stock or warehouse-keeper shall be deemed to be a "wholesale trader". 54. There is no quarrel that necessary declaration has been issued declaring the area as wholesale market and a market committee has been established. Section 21 of the Act provides that on and after the issuance of notification by the authority no person shall carry on wholesale trade of any specified commodity in any place other than the notified market, except under, and in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted in that behalf by the market committee under the Act. Section 20 provides for registration of wholesale traders. As such in terms of the statutory provision after the issuance of notification and constitution of a whole sale market as prescribed in the Act, wholesale trade of the specified commodity outside the market is not permissible and it is punishable. However, we need not elaborate the provisions contained in the Act for the purpose of the present case. 55. It is being pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants that no authority has been constituted under the Act to decide as to whether a trader is a wholesale trader or retail trader. But when action is taken for violation of the statutory provision, the authorities competent to impose penalty or punishment will be competent to decide whether the trader is a wholesale trader or retail trader. But when action is taken for violation of the statutory provision, the authorities competent to impose penalty or punishment will be competent to decide whether the trader is a wholesale trader or retail trader. Though many of the petitioners contended that they are not wholesale traders but atleast few of them admit themselves as wholesale traders. 28. In the above judgment, the Division Bench was mainly concerned with the claim of the licences of shops in public fruit market which was functioning in N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai-1. The main dispute that was before the Division Bench was as to the right of the licensees of shops belonging to the Municipal Corporation to resist or challenge the decision of the Corporation to shift the market to other notified area. While considering the above, the Division Bench went into the question of the right of wholesale licensees to insist that they should be allowed to carry on business in a particular area. 29. The said right claimed by the appellants was negatived by the Division Bench. The question as to whether the individual shop owners were doing business in wholesale or retail was not gone into by the Division Bench. Of course, the Division Bench had decided the scope of the provisions of the Act and held that it will be open to the market committee to regulate the wholesale trade and specified commodities. 30. Mr. P.H. Aravind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General would also invite our attention to the order of the learned single Judge of this Court in Chennai Retail Flower Merchant's Welfare Association rep. by its President and Chennai Koyambedu Malar Motha Vyabarigal Sangam rep. by its President, M.D. Arul Viswasam v. The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and the Chief Administrative Officer, Management Committee reported in (2010) 3 MLJ 691 wherein the learned single Judge has directed the authorities to take action under the Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1996 after giving opportunity to all the members of the associations to establish that their activity namely, trading in flowers at Badrian street is not in contravention of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1996. It is also stated that pursuant to the same individual notices were issued to the traders and orders were passed directing eviction of the traders. It is also stated that pursuant to the same individual notices were issued to the traders and orders were passed directing eviction of the traders. Pursuant to the said direction issued by the learned single Judge, the market committee had issued notices to various traders and individual orders were passed by the Market Committee. Aggrieved, some of the traders had approached the Government by way of appeal under Section 45 of the Act and those appeals were rejected by the Government vide G.O.(Ms).No.10, Housing and Urban Development (UD3-1) Department, dated 06.01.2012. 31. Relying upon the said Government Order, Mr. P.H. Aravind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General would contend that the respondents have after consideration of the factual situation found that the appellants in the appeal before the Government have been carrying on wholesale business, relying upon the status report filed before the Government, on 06.01.2012, had rejected the appeals. Therefore, the action of the authorities in requiring the appellants herein to discontinue the wholesale business is justified. 32. It is also pointed out that the challenge to the said Government Order, dated 06.01.2012 was also rejected by this Court in W.P.No.1589 of 2012, by order dated 23.04.2012. It is also pointed out by Mr. P.H. Aravind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General that Chennai Pushpa Viyabarigal and Commission Agentugal Sangam represented by its President had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.10852 of 2015 seeking implementation of the earlier directions issued by this Court pursuant to which G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 06.01.2012 was passed and this Court by an order dated 15.04.2015 had directed the respondents to consider the representation of the said Sangam and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Therefore, according to Mr. P.H. Aravind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General, the action for sealing of the premises of the flower vendors in Badrian Street was taken only pursuant to the directions issued by this Court. He would further point out that a contempt petition in Cont.P.No.2406 of 2015 was in fact filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.10852 of 2015 alleging non compliance of the directions issued by this Court. He would further point out that a contempt petition in Cont.P.No.2406 of 2015 was in fact filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.10852 of 2015 alleging non compliance of the directions issued by this Court. He would also point out that some of the traders whose shops were sealed during January 2016 had broken open locks and had reoccupied the premises and the Member Secretary of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority was forced to prefer a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police in February 2016 seeking his intervention since the vendors had broken open the seals and occupied the premises. 33. From the arguments advanced on either side, the question that arises for determination in these writ appeals is: As to whether the authorities have power to lock and seal or dispossess a person from his own or rented premises for violation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1996. 27. We have already extracted the directions issued by the learned single Judge, the learned single Judge had directed the authorities to lock and seal the premises of all wholesale traders including the premises of the appellants in Badrian Street, George Town, Chennai -1 within 48 hours from the date and time of the receipt of a copy of the order. The implementation of the process has also been directed to be videographed. 34. Sub-section (8) of Section 21 of the Act which has been extracted above provides that the market committee is empowered to prevent a person from carrying on wholesale trade in an area other than the notified area. If a direction to that effect, issued under clause (b) of sub-section (8) of Section 21, is not complied with, the market committee has got a right to have such direction carried into effect at its cost and have the amount thereof recovered from the defaulters in the same manner as arrears of land revenue. 35. A reading of the above provision would show that it only authorises the authorities to ensure discontinuance of wholesale trade. It does not permit the authorities to evict persons in possession of premises which either belong to them or occupied by them as tenants or otherwise. As we have already pointed out that the area in question namely, Badrian Street is not a public market belonging to a municipal authority or the market committee. It does not permit the authorities to evict persons in possession of premises which either belong to them or occupied by them as tenants or otherwise. As we have already pointed out that the area in question namely, Badrian Street is not a public market belonging to a municipal authority or the market committee. It consists of private buildings owned by individuals and the appellants and others are carrying on business in the said area either as owners of the premises or as tenants or as permissive occupiers. If we raise a question as to whether the provisions of the Act 24 of 1996 enable the authorities to dispossess the occupant of a private building, if he/she is found to be carrying on business in contravention of the provisions of the Act, the answer would be a firm 'No'. 36. The object of the enactment is to regulate wholesale trade within the notified area. The Act itself contemplates only regulation of the activities in the wholesale trade. While, it is true that after the formation of the Koyambedu Market Complex as the wholesale market area for perishable goods vide G.O.Ms.No.523, Housing and Urban Development Department, 17.12.1996, the authority under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act, 24 of 1996, has got power to prohibit the wholesale trade in any other area except notified market complex. But we do not think that the said power would include or take within its ambit the power to dispossess persons who are in legal possession of premises which do not belong to the municipal corporation. We find that the directions of the learned single Judge would amount to dispossession of the occupants of private buildings which is not authorised under the Act. 37. The main object of the Act is to regulate location of market areas and wholesale markets in respect of specified commodities within Chennai Metropolitan Planning Area and to decongest certain areas which were overcrowded in public interest. It cannot be said that the above object and the provisions of the Act would enable the authorities to evict persons who were in legal possession of the buildings on the ground that they are contravening the provisions of the enactment. The provisions of the enactment which empowers the authorities to implement the same are very clear in their scope. 38. The provisions of the enactment which empowers the authorities to implement the same are very clear in their scope. 38. Clause (c) of sub-section (8) of Section 21 only enables the authorities to carry out the directions issued in clause (b). Clause (b) empowers the market committee by a notice in writing to direct the person is found to be carrying on wholesale business violating the provisions of the Act to stop such wholesale trade in such place. We would at the risk of repetition reiterate that the object of the enactment is only to regulate the wholesale trade in certain commodities in any place other than notified areas. If any person is found to be carrying on any wholesale business in other area, it is open to the authorities to require him to stop such wholesale trade. If the noticee fails to comply with the direction which is issued under clause (b) of sub-section (8) of Section 21. Clause (c) authorises the authority to prevent a person from carrying on wholesale business. It does not empower the authority to lock and seal the premises or dispossess of him the premises of which he is in lawful occupation of. We are, therefore, constrained to point out that the directions issued by the learned single Judge to lock and seal the premises of all the wholesale flower traders in Badrian Street, George Town, Chennai are beyond the provisions of the Act and this Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus which travel beyond the scope and purpose of the enactment. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the learned single Judge was not right in directing locking and sealing of the premises. At the same time, we make it clear that it will be open to the authorities to regulate the wholesale trade and prevent persons from carrying on wholesale trade in Badrian Street, George Town, Chennai-1 or any other place which is not a notified area in wholesale trade in specified commodities. 39. Mr. P.H. Aravind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General would fairly submit that the closure of buildings or locking and sealing of the premises is not a solution to the present situation. No doubt true that the appellants and others who are carrying on business in flower in Badrian Street have been resisting the attempts by the authorities to regulate their business. P.H. Aravind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General would fairly submit that the closure of buildings or locking and sealing of the premises is not a solution to the present situation. No doubt true that the appellants and others who are carrying on business in flower in Badrian Street have been resisting the attempts by the authorities to regulate their business. But the said fact that the appellants and others have indulged in various litigations cannot be a licence to the authorities to act beyond the scope of the provisions of the Act and violate the constitutional right to property under Article 300-A and the constitutional right to live under Article 21 of the Constitution. When the Act does not contemplate eviction of the persons from the premises if they are contravening the provisions of the Act. We do not think that this Court can issue such directions for locking and sealing of the premises. 40. In all the earlier writ petitions, the learned single Judge as well as the Division Benches of this Court have only directed the authorities to take action to prevent wholesale trade in Badrain Street, George Town, Chennai or any other un-notified area. 41. The learned Additional Advocate General would point out that the supervision of the activities of the appellants is very difficult and the only way to ensure that the appellants do not contravene the provisions of the Act is to seal their premises and prevent them from carrying on business. We find ourselves unable to agree with the said submission of the learned Additional Advocate General. 42. Admittedly, the Act does not prevent the retail trade in flower outside the notified area. The appellants claimed that they are doing retail trade. The authorities claimed that the appellants are doing wholesale trade. 43. Be that as it may. Even if the appellants are found to be carrying on wholesale trade, locking and sealing or dispossessing them is not a solution and the same is not authorised by the enactment itself. There are other enactments like the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 which provides for locking and sealing as a remedy. 44. As already stated the directions issued by the learned single Judge are beyond the scope of the writ petition as well as provisions of the Act. 45. There are other enactments like the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 which provides for locking and sealing as a remedy. 44. As already stated the directions issued by the learned single Judge are beyond the scope of the writ petition as well as provisions of the Act. 45. For the foregoing reasons, we refer the following questions for determination by a Larger Bench of this Court:- (i) Whether the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Specified Commodities Markets (Regulation and Location) Act, 1996, in particular Section 21 authorise the authorities, namely, the Market Committee to lock and seal the premises which are otherwise in lawful occupation of the appellants and dispossess the persons who are otherwise in lawful occupation thereof for contravention of the provisions of the Act? and (ii) Whether the determination of the factual question is as to whether the appellants are carrying on wholesale trade is left to the domain of the Market Committee or it should be preceded by a criminal prosecution as contemplated under Section 47 of the Act." 46. Registry is directed to place the matter before The Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders for constitution of a Larger Bench. Ordered accordingly.