A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
The landmark Supreme Court judgment in The State of Rajasthan v. Nath Mal and Mitha Mal (1954 SCR 982) addressed the constitutional validity of Clause 25 of the Rajasthan Foodgrains Control Order, 1949, against the backdrop of Articles 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g), and 31(2) of the Constitution of India. The respondents, being grain merchants, challenged the freezing and requisitioning of their foodgrain stocks at prices lower than the prevailing market rate. The apex court, while upholding the first part of Clause 25 related to stock freezing, struck down the latter part enabling requisition without proper compensation as unconstitutional. The judgment examined the legal limits on executive discretion, laid down principles regarding reasonable restrictions on trade, and emphasized the importance of fair compensation in state acquisitions. The Court reaffirmed the protection of fundamental rights in the face of arbitrary executive actions under essential commodities regulations. This case stands pivotal in Indian constitutional jurisprudence concerning state control over trade in essential goods and property rights under the Constitution.

Keywords: Constitutional Law, Article 19, Article 31, Essential Commodities, Property Rights, Administrative Law, Fundamental Rights

B) CASE DETAILS
i) Judgement Cause Title: The State of Rajasthan v. Nath Mal and Mitha Mal
ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 136 of 1952
iii) Judgement Date: 12 March 1954
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: Chief Justice M. C. Mahajan, Justices Mukherjea, S. R. Das, Vivian Bose, Ghulam Hasan
vi) Author: Justice Ghulam Hasan
vii) Citation: (1954) SCR 982
viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Article 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India

• Article 31(2) of the Constitution of India

• Section 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946

• Clause 25 of the Rajasthan Foodgrains Control Order, 1949
  ix) Judgments Overruled: None
  x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects: Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Economic Regulations, Property Law, Fundamental Rights

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
This case emerged in the early post-independence era where control orders under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 governed trade and distribution of essential commodities. In Rajasthan, the Foodgrains Control Order, 1949, empowered authorities to freeze foodgrain stocks and requisition them for government procurement. The respondents—Nath Mal and Mitha Mal—grain traders licensed under the Order, faced a drastic administrative action wherein their stocks were frozen and requisitioned at Rs. 9 per maund, a price significantly below the market rate of Rs. 18 per maund. They alleged this action violated their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g), and 31(2). The Rajasthan High Court found in their favour, holding Clause 25 unconstitutional. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, raising crucial questions on the extent of state power in economic regulation vis-à-vis constitutional liberties.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE
The respondents were grain merchants holding valid licenses for foodgrains trade in Raniwara, Rajasthan. In October 1950, under authority granted by Clause 25 of the Rajasthan Foodgrains Control Order, 1949, their bajra stocks were frozen by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Subsequently, these were requisitioned at Rs. 9 per maund despite the market rate ranging between Rs. 17 to Rs. 18 per maund. The State sold the same grains at Rs. 13-5-4 per maund. The traders approached the High Court under Article 226, claiming the freezing and requisitioning violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 31(2). The High Court ruled Clause 25 unconstitutional and directed the State to compensate the traders at Rs. 17 per maund. The State, dissatisfied, moved the Supreme Court in appeal.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
i) Whether Clause 25 of the Rajasthan Foodgrains Control Order, 1949, is violative of Article 19(1)(f) (right to property) and Article 19(1)(g) (right to trade) of the Constitution?
ii) Whether the requisitioning of foodgrains at a rate unilaterally fixed by the government violates Article 31(2) (right to compensation for acquisition)?
iii) Whether the executive authority had unfettered discretion under Clause 25 to requisition foodgrain stocks without guidelines or principles?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
i) The Advocate-General of Rajasthan, appearing for the State, argued that Clause 25 formed part of a statutory mechanism necessary for ensuring equitable distribution of essential foodgrains.
ii) He submitted that under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, broad regulatory powers had been conferred on the State to ensure availability of essential commodities.
iii) It was contended that restrictions on disposal and price fixation of foodgrains were reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) aimed at public interest.
iv) The freezing and requisitioning of stock, according to the appellant, did not amount to acquisition under Article 31(2), as the government had not taken possession in perpetuity.
v) The Advocate-General emphasized the urgency and necessity of executive discretion in economic emergencies, and cautioned against judicial interference in administrative pricing policies.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
i) K. N. Aggarwal and P. C. Agarwal, representing the respondents, argued that Clause 25 lacked reasonable safeguards and conferred arbitrary discretion on the executive.
ii) The respondents maintained that the State requisitioned stocks at nearly half the market price, thereby violating Article 31(2) which required either fixed compensation or a mechanism for its determination.
iii) Counsel argued that freezing and requisitioning, without prior notice or compensation guidelines, resulted in unlawful deprivation of property and made it impossible to carry on their trade, violating Article 19(1)(g).
iv) The respondents further stressed that the power to fix procurement price without reference to market rate amounted to confiscation rather than acquisition, and the law failed to prescribe criteria for compensation.
v) The High Court’s finding of Rs. 17 per maund as fair compensation was defended as a just valuation based on market reality and principles of equity.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS
i) Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution: Freedom to acquire, hold and dispose of property
ii) Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution: Freedom to practice any profession or trade
iii) Article 31(2) of the Constitution (pre-44th Amendment): Protection against compulsory acquisition without compensation
iv) Section 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946: Empowers state to regulate supply and distribution of essential commodities
v) Clause 25 of the Rajasthan Foodgrains Control Order, 1949: Grants authority to freeze and requisition stocks at procurement rates

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI
i) The Supreme Court upheld the freezing provision in Clause 25, ruling that stock control is reasonably related to objectives under the Essential Supplies Act. It promotes public welfare by regulating essential commodities, and thus, is not violative of Article 19(1)(g).
ii) However, the Court struck down the latter part of Clause 25, which allowed requisition of foodgrains at procurement rates without compensation criteria, as unconstitutional under Article 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g), and 31(2).
iii) The Court observed that the clause enabled authorities to fix arbitrary prices, lacking statutory principles or checks, resulting in unreasonable restriction on trade and illegal deprivation of property.

b. OBITER DICTA 
i) The Court remarked that regulation in public interest must operate within constitutionally permissible bounds, and economic control cannot override fundamental rights without satisfying test of reasonableness.
ii) Executive discretion, especially concerning price fixation and requisition, must be subject to law, else it would permit executive arbitrariness.

c. GUIDELINES 

• State authorities must frame price fixation procedures that are transparent, fair, and based on market rates.

• Any acquisition of property must be backed by law that fixes compensation or lays down principles for determination.

• Mere delegation of powers to executive officers is not sufficient unless accompanied by statutory safeguards.

• Stock control provisions are permissible only when reasonable and proportionate to public interest objectives.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
This ruling stands as a milestone in delineating limits of state power in economic regulation. The Supreme Court carefully balanced public interest and individual liberty, reaffirming the primacy of fundamental rights even amidst essential commodity controls. By reading down Clause 25, the Court safeguarded citizens against executive overreach and unjust deprivation of property. The judgment remains relevant in contemporary times where price control and essential supply schemes often invoke constitutional scrutiny.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
[1] Renual v. Manmatha, 72 I.A. 156
[2] Bank of Commerce Ltd. v. Amulya Krishna Basu Roy Chowdhury, [1944] F.C.R. 126

b. Important Statutes Referred
[3] Constitution of India – Article 19(1)(f), Article 19(1)(g), Article 31(2)
[4] Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, Section 3
[5] Rajasthan Foodgrains Control Order, 1949, Clause 25