STATE OF M.P. & ORS. versus M/S. CHHOTABHAI JETHABHAI PATEL & CO. & ANR.

Citation: [1972] 2 S.C.R. 838 · Decided: 10-12-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

838 
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. 
v. 
M/S. CHHOTABHAI JETHABHAI PATEL & CO. & ANR. 
December 10, 1971 
[S. M. SIKRI, C.J., J. M. SHELAT, I. D. DUA, H. R. KHANNA 
AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.) 
·Madhya Pradesh Tendu Patta (Vyapo·r Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964 
-Section 5-Whether restrictions on transport of tendu leaves imported 
from outside the State is violative of Part XIII of the Constitution. 
The respondent, a partnership firm of which the ·second respondent was 
a partner, carried on business as manufacturers of bidis at various places 
in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Being unable to secure sufficient tendu 
leaves locally, the firm took leases for the collection of such leaves in 
Bihar & Maharashtra. 
They actually imported tendu leaves under two 
railway consignments from Biha'r. 
They informed the Divisional Forest 
Officer about the same and asked permission for transpon of the leaves 
and to utilise them in their factories. By letter, the D.F.O. informed the 
respondents that the leaves must not be moved for bidi manufacture until 
]Y.'rmission is given. 
Rcsponcrents obeyed the order; but in spite of that, 
the Sub-divisional Forest Officer seized two quantities of such leaves and 
filed a complaint alleging contravention of s. 5 of Madhya Pradesh Tendu 
Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964. 
The respondent filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for 
a writ of certiorari quashing the complaint. The contention of the res-
pondents was that the Act did not prohibit import of tendu leaves from 
outside nor_ was there any restriction on a manufacturer to consume the 
same for the manufacture of bidis or the Rules made under the Act did 
not regulate the transport of the tendu leaves imported from outside. 
The State however, contended that transport of tendu leaves whether 
grown locally or imported from outside was completely prohibited under 
s. 5 of the Act, except by a license-holder in terms of .a permit issued. 
S. 5 ( 1) provides that no person other than the State Government or an 
C'fficer of the State Government etc. shall purchase or transport tendu 
kaves. Further, the Act did not prohibit impon of tendu leaves and so 
the Act is not violative of Arts. 31, 301 and 304 of the Constitution and 
the control of movement of tendu leaves 'lfter their import was in no way 
repugnant to Arts. 301 and 304 of the Constitution. The State contended 
that unless the State had the poW.r to check the purChase of tenqu leaves 
from outside the State and to restrict the transport thereof within the State, 
the monopoly of State trading in tendu leaves would not be effective. The 
High Court rejected these contentions of the State and hence the appeal. 
Dismissing the apJ>Oal, 
HELD : (I) All the relevant provisions of the Act and the rules made 
thereunder show that the legislature intended that everybody growing 
leaves within th<> State should offer the same to it dr its agents in different 
units for sale and the State was bound to purchase every single lot of 
usable tendu leaves. 
Prima fade trade in tendu leaves could consist of 
dealing in those leaves, i.e., their purchase and sale but transport of the 
leaves onc)e p.urchased or sold would not prima facie be an orgariic or 
integral part of dealing in those leaves. f842 DJ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
M.P. STATE v. CHHOTABHAI (Mitter, J.) 
839 
Vraj/al Mani/al v. M.P. State [19701 I S.C.R. 400, filjlowed. 
(ii) In the present case, the transport of tendu leaves purchased out-
side but consigned to places within the State to be used for the manufac-
ture of bidis is not integrally connected with the State monopoly as en-
visaged in the Act. 
The Act ought not to be construed so as to ban 
import of tendu leaves from outside the State or restrict their movement 
once they are within the State unless cleat language was used in that 
behalf. (844 CJ 
Akadasi Padhan v. Stat~ of Orissa, (1963] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 691, referred 
to. 
CIVIL APPELT-ATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 684 of 
1968. 
Y. S. Dharmadhikari, Advocate-General for the . State of 
Madhya Pradesh and I. N. Shroff, for the appellants. 
M. C. Seta/vad, Rameshwar Nath and S. K. Dho/akia, for 
respondent No. 1. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Mitter, J. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Madhya 
Pradesh High Court quashing the proceedings initiated on the com-
plaint filed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Saugor in the Court of 
the Magistrate of the First C

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.