INTRODUCTION

Trade, commerce, and intercourse are integral to India's

economic cohesion, as recognized by the framers of the Indian
Constitution. They envisioned a nation functioning as a single
economic unit, free from internal barriers, where economic
unity would bolster the stability and cultural integration of the
federal polity. Part XIII of the Constitution (Articles 301-307)
reflects this vision, emphasizing the need for unrestricted trade
and commerce across states while maintaining necessary
regulatory oversight. "Trade" involves the organized buying and
selling of goods for profit, and "commerce" refers to the
broader movement of goods and information across various
channels, including air, sea, and telecommunications.
"Intercourse" encompasses the broader movement of goods
and people, whether for commercial purposes or otherwise.

Article 301 guarantees the freedom of trade, commerce, and

intercourse throughout the country, promoting the seamless
exchange of goods and services across state borders. However,
the Constitution also recognizes the need for regulation in the
public interest, as outlined in Articles 302 to 305. Parliament
has the authority to impose restrictions to ensure public health,
safety, and national security, maintaining a balance between
economic freedom and regulatory oversight. The idea of
reducing trade barriers—such as tariffs, quotas, and non-tariff
measures—among states is crucial in a federal system,
fostering a sense of unity among people across different
geographical regions.

These constitutional provisions were inspired by the Australian

Constitution and aim to create an environment where trade
and commerce can thrive while ensuring that the country's
economic activities align with broader national goals. The
regulatory framework ensures that economic unity and
integration remain at the forefront, contributing to the stability
and cultural unity of India's federal structure.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF TRADE, COMMERCE,

AND INTERCOURSE

Article 301 of the Indian Constitution is a cornerstone of India's

economic structure, providing for the freedom of trade,
commerce, and intercourse throughout the country. This
provision underscores the idea that economic activities—
whether they involve the movement of goods, services, or
people—should be free from barriers, both within individual
states and across state lines. This principle is integral to
fostering a unified national market, essential for the economic
cohesion and stability of a diverse and federal India.

Trade
The concept of "trade" under Article 301 refers to the
organized buying and selling of goods with the primary goal of
profit-making. This definition highlights trade as a structured
and purposeful activity, fundamental to economic transactions.
In the context of the Constitution, "trade" is often used
interchangeably with "business," emphasizing its role in driving
economic activity and growth. The freedom to trade without
undue restrictions ensures that businesses can operate
efficiently across state borders, contributing to the national
economy's vibrancy.

Commerce
"Commerce" within the meaning of Article 301 pertains to the
transmission or movement of goods through various means,
including air, water, and communication networks such as
telephone or telegraph. The focus here is not on the profit
derived from these activities, but on the essential act of
transportation and transmission itself. Commerce is critical to
linking different parts of the country, allowing goods and
services to reach markets across vast distances. This
unrestricted flow is vital for economic integration, ensuring
that no part of the country is economically isolated.

Intercourse
The term "intercourse" as used in Article 301 is broader,
referring to the movement of goods, people, and services from
one place to another, encompassing both commercial and non-
commercial activities. It includes various forms of interaction,
such as travel and communication. However, in the
constitutional context, "intercourse" is interpreted in a more
limited sense, focusing on "commercial intercourse" rather
than unrestricted movement. This interpretation is reinforced
by the fact that "intercourse," unlike "trade" and "commerce,"
is not explicitly covered as a subject of legislation under the
Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. This narrower
interpretation ensures that the term is aligned with the overall
goal of facilitating organized economic activities rather than
unregulated movement.

The use of the term "free" in Article 301 should not be

misconstrued as an absence of laws. Instead, it refers to
freedom from unnecessary barriers that could hinder the
smooth functioning of trade and commerce. This distinction is
crucial, as it underscores the difference between laws that
obstruct economic freedom and those that regulate activities
to ensure they are conducted in an orderly and efficient
manner. The constitutional framework aims to strike a balance
between freedom and regulation, allowing trade and
commerce to thrive while ensuring they contribute positively to
the nation's economy.

This framework, therefore, plays a critical role in maintaining

the economic unity of India, reducing disparities between
states, and ensuring that all citizens, regardless of where they
live, can participate in and benefit from the nation's economic
activities. By fostering a seamless economic environment,
Article 301 and its related provisions help to solidify the
nation's federal structure, promoting stability and cultural unity
through economic integration.

ACTIVITIES NOT PROTECTED UNDER ARTICLE 301

Article 301 of the Indian Constitution provides for the freedom

of trade, commerce, and intercourse throughout the territory
of India. However, this freedom is not absolute. Certain
activities, although they may involve elements of trade,
commerce, or intercourse, are not protected under Article 301
due to their illegal or undesirable nature. The Supreme Court of
India, in the case of State of Bombay v. R.M.D.
Chamarbaugwala1 (1957), clarified that activities of a criminal
nature, or those deemed undesirable, do not qualify for
protection under Article 301.

Illegal activities such as lotteries and gambling are examples

that fall outside the scope of Article 301. The Court held that
these activities, along with others such as trafficking of women
and children, hiring goondas (thugs) or terrorists, and
producing obscene materials for profit, are considered extra-
commercium—meaning they are not subject to private
ownership or lawful trade. Even though these activities may
employ the forms, methods, and procedures typical of trade,
they are not recognized as legitimate commerce and thus are
not protected by Article 301.

1
AIR 1957 SUPREME COURT 699
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ARTICLE 301 AND ARTICLE 19(1)(G)

Article 301, under Part XIII of the Indian Constitution, ensures

the free flow of trade and commerce throughout the country,
while Article 19(1)(g) under Part III provides citizens with the
fundamental right to practice any occupation, trade, or
business. A key distinction between these provisions is that
Article 301 guarantees a constitutional right that can be
claimed by anyone, whereas Article 19(1)(g) provides a
fundamental right that is limited to citizens only. This limitation
under Article 19(1)(g) is addressed by Article 301, which allows
both citizens and non-citizens to seek legal recourse if their
rights are infringed.

Article 19(1)(g) contains specific restrictions on the freedom to

carry out an occupation or trade, while Article 301 is
supplemented by Articles 302 to 307, which outline the
restrictions on the free flow of trade across the country.
However, the restrictions under Articles 302 to 307 are
intended to have only an indirect impact and should not
directly diminish the freedoms provided under Article 19(1)(g).
In this sense, Article 301 serves as an explanatory provision for
Article 19(1)(g) but has a narrower scope since it specifically
addresses the movement of goods and services.

It is often argued that Article 301 is a right available for trade as

a whole, while Article 19(1)(g) is a right available to individuals.
However, this is a misconception. Article 301, derived from
Section 92 of the Australian Constitution2, is also available to
individuals.

Thus, Articles 301 and 19(1)(g) are interrelated in several

respects. This interrelation is particularly evident during times
of emergency, when the rights under Article 19(1)(g) are

2
Australian Constitution. (1900). Section 92. Commonwealth of Australia.
suspended. In such situations, the courts rely on the provisions
of Article 301 to determine whether any violation of rights has
occurred.

PARLIAMENT'S POWER TO REGULATE TRADE AND

COMMERCE IN INDIA

Article 302 of the Indian Constitution is a crucial provision that

grants the Parliament the authority to regulate trade and
commerce within the country. Situated within Part XIII of the
Constitution, which specifically addresses "Trade and
Commerce Within the Territory of India," Article 302 acts as a
counterbalance to Article 301. While Article 301 ensures the
freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse across India,
Article 302 acknowledges the necessity for Parliament to
impose restrictions on this freedom under certain conditions.
The primary objective of this provision is to maintain a balance
between free trade and the public interest, allowing Parliament
to enact regulations when required.

Article 302 explicitly states: “Parliament may by law impose

such restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce or
intercourse between one State and another or within any part
of the territory of India as may be required in the public
interest.” This provision underscores that any restrictions on
trade and commerce must be imposed through proper
legislative processes and enacted as law. Moreover, the power
granted by Article 302 is not absolute; it is conditioned on the
need for such restrictions to serve the "public interest." The
inclusion of this requirement ensures that Parliament cannot
arbitrarily restrict trade and commerce but must instead
demonstrate that such measures are necessary to promote the
greater good.
The power conferred by Article 302 allows Parliament
significant discretion in determining what constitutes the
"public interest" in any particular case. This authority gives
Parliament the ability to assess whether a restriction on trade
or commerce is justified based on its understanding of what
will benefit the nation as a whole. However, while Article 302
grants Parliament the ability to impose restrictions, it
simultaneously prohibits discriminatory measures. This means
that any regulation or restriction on trade and commerce must
be applied fairly and cannot unfairly target specific individuals,
groups, or states. Such provisions ensure that the exercise of
regulatory power does not lead to arbitrary or unjust outcomes.

To fully understand the scope of Parliament's regulatory power

under Article 302, it is important to clarify the terms "trade,"
"commerce," and "intercourse" as used within this context.
"Trade" refers to the buying and selling of goods for profit and
is often used interchangeably with "business." "Commerce," on
the other hand, involves the transmission or movement of
goods or information through any means of communication,
such as air, water, telephone, or telegraph. The focus in
commerce is on the movement or transmission itself rather
than the generation of profit. "Intercourse" includes the
movement of goods from one place to another, encompassing
both commercial and non-commercial transactions. There is
some debate regarding whether "intercourse" in Article 302 is
limited to "commercial intercourse," but the broader
interpretation allows for both types of movement.

The application of Article 302 has been illustrated in several

legal cases. One notable example is Surajmal Roopchand and
Co. vs. The State of Rajasthan3 (1967), where restrictions were
imposed on the transportation of grain under the Defence of
India Rules. These restrictions were aimed at protecting public

3
AIR 1967 RAJ 104
health and safety, particularly during a time of national need.
The Court upheld these measures, emphasizing that Parliament
has the authority to regulate trade and commerce when
necessary in the public interest. This case demonstrates how
Article 302 can be applied to address specific concerns while
balancing the need for regulation against the broader principle
of free trade.

Despite the significant power granted to Parliament under

Article 302, this authority is not without limitations. Other
articles within Part XIII of the Constitution, such as Articles 303
and 304, place constraints on Parliament's power to prevent
potential misuse and ensure fairness. Article 303 restricts
Parliament from enacting laws that would give one state a
commercial advantage over another, although exceptions are
allowed in cases where such laws are necessary due to a
scarcity of goods in certain regions. Article 304 allows states to
impose taxes on goods imported from other states, provided
that similar taxes are applied to goods produced within the
state. This provision aims to prevent discrimination against
goods from other states and maintain a level playing field in
interstate commerce.

Article 302 of the Indian Constitution grants Parliament the

authority to regulate trade and commerce within India, but this
power is carefully balanced by the need to serve the public
interest and ensure fairness. Parliament has considerable
discretion to determine what constitutes "public interest," but
it cannot impose discriminatory restrictions. Articles 303 and
304 provide important checks and balances, ensuring that
Parliament's power is exercised justly and without prejudice to
the states or individual rights. Together, these constitutional
provisions create a framework that supports the free
movement of trade and commerce while allowing for necessary
regulation in the public interest.
STATES' POWER TO REGULATE TRADE AND COMMERCE

The power of the Parliament to regulate trade and commerce

under Article 302 of the Indian Constitution is balanced by the
provisions of Article 303. Article 303(1) restricts Parliament
from enacting any law that favors one state over another in
matters of trade and commerce based on any entry in the trade
and commerce lists outlined in the Seventh Schedule. This
clause ensures that no state is given an unfair advantage over
others through legislative action, thereby maintaining a level
playing field across the country.

However, Article 303 also contains a provision that allows for

exceptions. Clause (2) of Article 303 permits Parliament to
make laws that might favor one state over another if it is
declared by law that such provisions are necessary due to a
scarcity of goods in certain parts of the country. This clause
grants Parliament the discretion to determine when there is a
scarcity of goods and to enact regulations accordingly. Thus,
while Article 303(1) generally prohibits preferential treatment
among states, Article 303(2) provides flexibility for Parliament
to address specific economic needs or crises.

Additionally, Article 304(a) empowers individual states to

impose taxes on goods imported from other states, provided
that similar taxes are also levied on goods produced within the
state. This provision is designed to prevent discrimination
against goods from other states and to promote fair trade
practices. The intent is to ensure that there is no unfair
advantage given to locally produced goods over those imported
from other states.
The interpretation of Article 304(a) was addressed in the case
of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai4 (1964). In this case,
the State of Madhya Pradesh imposed taxes on imported
tobacco while not imposing similar taxes on tobacco produced
within the state. The Supreme Court found this tax policy to be
discriminatory, as it created an unfair disadvantage for goods
imported from other states compared to locally produced
goods. The Court disapproved of this discriminatory taxation,
underscoring the constitutional mandate for equality in trade
practices among states.

While the Indian Constitution grants both the Parliament and

the states certain powers to regulate trade and commerce,
these powers are carefully balanced to prevent discrimination
and ensure fair trade practices. Articles 303 and 304 collectively
ensure that neither the Parliament nor the states can create
regulations that unfairly favor certain regions or undermine the
principles of free and fair trade across the country.

Article 304(b) of the Indian Constitution provides states with

the authority to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom
of trade, commerce, and intercourse within their territories to
serve the public interest. However, this power is not absolute
and comes with specific conditions that must be met. First and
foremost, any bill or amendment proposing such restrictions
cannot be introduced in the State Legislature without the prior
approval of the President of India. This requirement ensures
that there is a check on the states’ power to regulate interstate
trade and commerce, aligning state actions with national
interests.

For a state law regulating interstate trade to be valid, it must

satisfy the following conditions: it must receive prior approval
from the President, the restrictions imposed must be

4
AIR 1964 SUPREME COURT 1006
reasonable and rational, and they must serve the public
interest. These conditions are designed to ensure that state-
level restrictions on trade do not undermine the principles of
fairness and equity or impede the free flow of goods and
services across the country.

The requirement for Presidential approval and the need to

ensure that restrictions are both reasonable and in the public
interest highlight the overarching authority of Parliament in
matters of trade and commerce. This framework underscores
that while states have some autonomy to regulate trade within
their territories, the ultimate power to govern trade and
commerce across states remains vested with Parliament. This
arrangement maintains a balance between the autonomy of
individual states and the unity and integrity of the national
economy.

SAVING OF EXISTING LAWS

Article 305 of the Indian Constitution protects existing laws and

laws that establish state monopolies from being invalidated.
This protection remains effective unless the President issues a
contrary order or directive that overrides the existing law. In
the landmark case of Saghir Ahmad v. The State of Uttar
Pradesh5 (1954), the Supreme Court addressed whether an act
establishing a state monopoly in a particular trade or
commerce would violate the provisions of the Constitution
under Article 301, which guarantees the freedom of trade,
commerce, and intercourse throughout India.

Initially, such state monopolies were seen as potentially

conflicting with the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution, which provides citizens the freedom to
practice any profession or carry out any occupation, trade, or
5
1954 AIR 728
business. However, the First Constitutional Amendment Act
amended Article 19(1)(g) to exclude state monopolies from its
purview. Further strengthening this position, the Fourth
Constitutional Amendment ensured that existing laws and
future laws creating state monopolies in trade are protected
from being challenged on the grounds of violating Articles 301
and 304.

Thus, Article 305 serves as a safeguard for laws that were in

place before the Constitution came into effect, as well as for
laws that establish state monopolies, ensuring that these laws
cannot be invalidated merely because they impose restrictions
on trade or commerce. This provision allows the state to
maintain or create monopolies in certain sectors without
contravening the constitutional guarantee of free trade, as long
as the President does not issue an order to the contrary.

APPOINTMENT OF AUTHORITY FOR IMPLEMENTING ARTICLES

301 TO 304

Article 307 of the Indian Constitution, located under Part XIII,

empowers Parliament to appoint an authority responsible for
implementing the provisions outlined in Articles 301 to 304.
This article grants Parliament the discretion to select an
appropriate authority to oversee and enforce the rules and
regulations related to trade, commerce, and intercourse within
the country. Additionally, Parliament is authorized to confer
upon this authority the necessary powers and functions it
considers essential to effectively carry out these provisions.
This framework ensures a structured approach to managing
trade and commerce across India, providing a mechanism for
maintaining uniformity and fairness in the application of trade
laws.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS

Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. vs. The State of Assam (1961)

Facts:
In the case of Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. vs. The State of Assam6, the
Assam Taxation Act imposed a tax on goods transported
through inland waterways and roads within the state. The
petitioner, Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd., was engaged in the business of
transporting tea from Assam to Calcutta (now Kolkata). As the
tea was transported through Assam on its way to Calcutta, it
became subject to taxation under the Assam Taxation Act. The
company challenged the validity of this tax, arguing that it
infringed upon the freedom of trade, commerce, and
intercourse guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.

Issues:
The case raised two significant constitutional questions. First,
whether the Assam Taxation Act of 1954 violated Article 301 of
the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of trade,
commerce, and intercourse throughout India. Second, whether
the Act could be justified under Article 304(b), which allows
states to impose reasonable restrictions on trade, commerce,
and intercourse if such restrictions are in the public interest
and have received the President's sanction.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the Assam Taxation Act imposed a
tax that directly and immediately restricted the free movement
of goods, thereby violating Article 301 of the Constitution. The
Court emphasized that any law restricting trade, commerce, or
intercourse must comply with the conditions set out in Article
304(b). This includes obtaining the President's prior approval

6
AIR 1961 SUPREME COURT 232
before a state enacts such a law. In this case, the Assam
Taxation Act did not meet the requirements of Article 304(b) as
it lacked the necessary presidential sanction.

The Court further clarified that the freedom of trade,

commerce, and intercourse guaranteed under Article 301
would be rendered meaningless if the movement of goods
could be obstructed without adhering to the procedural
safeguards established in Articles 302 to 304 of the
Constitution. This judgment underscored the constitutional
limitations on state powers to tax goods in transit and
reinforced the principle that such powers must be exercised in
a manner consistent with the constitutional guarantee of free
trade across India.

Automobile Transport Ltd. vs. The State of Rajasthan (1963)

Facts:
In the case of Automobile Transport Ltd. vs. The State of
Rajasthan7, the State of Rajasthan imposed an annual tax on
motor vehicles. The tax rates were set at Rs. 60 for a motor
vehicle and Rs. 2000 for a goods vehicle. The appellant,
Automobile Transport Ltd., challenged the validity of this tax,
arguing that it violated Article 301 of the Indian Constitution,
which guarantees the freedom of trade, commerce, and
intercourse throughout the country.

Issue:
The central issue in this case was whether the tax imposed by
the State of Rajasthan was constitutionally valid under Article
301, or if it constituted an unreasonable restriction on the
freedom of trade and commerce.

7
AIR 1962 SUPREME COURT 1406
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the tax imposed by the State of
Rajasthan was valid. The Court reasoned that the tax was a
regulatory measure or a compensatory tax, aimed at facilitating
the smooth operation of trade, commerce, and intercourse.
The Court explained that such taxes are essential for
maintaining the financial stability of the state and are intended
to compensate for the use of state resources, such as roads and
infrastructure, by motor vehicles.

The judgment further elaborated on the concept of

"Compensatory or Regulatory Taxes," highlighting that these
taxes are designed to serve the public interest and regulatory
purposes. The Court concluded that a tax imposed as a
compensatory or regulatory measure does not violate the
freedom guaranteed under Article 301. Consequently, such a
tax does not require validation under Article 304(b), which
generally requires the President's sanction for imposing certain
types of taxes or restrictions. The Court's decision established
that not all taxes on trade, commerce, and intercourse are
unconstitutional; those serving a regulatory or compensatory
purpose are permissible.

The State of Mysore vs. Sanjeeviah (1967)

Facts:
In The State of Mysore vs. Sanjeeviah8, the government of
Mysore, under the Mysore Forest Act of 1900, enacted a law
that prohibited the movement of forest produce between
sunrise and sunset. This law aimed to control and manage the
transportation of forest products within the state.

Issue:

8
AIR 1967 SUPREME COURT 1189
The main issue in this case was whether the law banning the
movement of forest produce during specific hours was a
violation of the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse
guaranteed under Article 301 of the Indian Constitution.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the law was unconstitutional and
declared it void. The Court observed that the law was
restrictive rather than regulatory, thereby infringing upon the
freedom guaranteed under Article 301. The judgment
emphasized that while states have the authority to regulate
trade and commerce to a reasonable extent, any law that
imposes a restriction without justification or reasonableness
would be deemed violative of Article 301. In this case, the
restriction on the movement of forest produce was not a mere
regulation but a substantial impediment to free trade, and
therefore, the law was struck down as unconstitutional.

G.K. Krishna vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1975)

Facts:
In the case of G.K. Krishna vs. State of Tamil Nadu9, the
government of Tamil Nadu issued a notification under the
Madras Motor Vehicles Act, increasing the motor vehicle tax on
omnibuses from Rs. 30 to Rs. 100. The government's
justification for this increase was to curb unhealthy competition
between omnibuses and regular stage carriage buses, as well as
to prevent the misuse of omnibuses.

Issues:
The petitioner raised two key issues:

1. Whether the increased tax was compensatory or

regulatory in nature.

9
AIR 1975 SUPREME COURT 583
 2. Whether the increased tax acted as a barrier to the
freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse as
guaranteed under Article 301 of the Indian Constitution.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the increased tax on omnibuses
was compensatory or regulatory in nature and, therefore, did
not violate the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse
guaranteed under Article 301. The Court explained that such
taxes are not barriers to trade but rather facilitate it by
ensuring safe and efficient transportation infrastructure.

The Court further elaborated that for a tax to be considered a

"prohibited tax" under Article 301, it must first be a direct tax
that infringes upon the free movement of goods or services in
trade or business. In this case, the tax was not a direct barrier
to trade but a charge levied for the use of public roads and the
services provided by the state. The Court also noted that no
citizen has the right to engage in any service without
reimbursing the state for the special services provided. The
maintenance of safe and efficient roads is necessary for the
smooth operation of vehicles, and the cost of such
maintenance is borne by the government. Thus, it is reasonable
for the state to impose a tax to recover these costs.

The Supreme Court concluded that the increase in tax was

justified, reasonable, and valid under the law, as it was
necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the public
transportation system and the maintenance of state
infrastructure. The tax was deemed to be in the public interest
and not a violation of constitutional provisions.
CONCLUSION

The provisions of Part XIII of the Indian Constitution,

particularly Articles 301 to 307, underscore the critical
importance of maintaining a free and unified national market
for trade, commerce, and intercourse across the states of India.
The framers of the Constitution envisioned a cohesive
economic structure that transcends regional boundaries,
fostering unity and stability within the federal framework of the
nation. While Article 301 guarantees the freedom of trade,
commerce, and intercourse, the subsequent articles provide a
necessary balance by allowing for regulatory oversight to serve
the public interest.

The constitutional guarantee under Article 301 is not absolute;

it is subject to reasonable restrictions that are deemed
necessary for public health, safety, and national security. The
balance between economic freedom and regulatory control is
crucial in ensuring that trade and commerce are conducted
efficiently and fairly, contributing to the nation's overall
economic growth and stability.

The legal framework, supported by landmark judicial

interpretations, affirms the delicate balance between
maintaining economic unity and upholding state autonomy
within India's federal system. The power vested in both
Parliament and state legislatures to regulate trade and
commerce, while carefully circumscribed by constitutional
safeguards, ensures that economic activities across the country
remain free, fair, and aligned with broader national interests.
Ultimately, the constitutional provisions concerning trade and
commerce reflect India's commitment to fostering an
integrated economic environment, promoting stability and
cultural unity through economic cohesion.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Indian Constitution. (1950). Government of India.

 Australian Constitution. (1900). Commonwealth of Australia.
 The Defence of India Act, 1915
 The Assam Taxation Act, 1954
 Mysore Forest Act, 1900
 State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala, AIR 1957
SUPREME COURT 699
 Surajmal Roopchand and Co. vs. The State of Rajasthan, AIR
1967 RAJ 104
 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai, AIR 1964 SUPREME
COURT 1006
 Saghir Ahmad v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, 1954 AIR 728
 Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. vs. The State of Assam, AIR 1961
SUPREME COURT 232
 Automobile Transport Ltd. vs. The State of Rajasthan, AIR
1962 SUPREME COURT 1406
 The State of Mysore vs. Sanjeeviah, AIR 1967 SUPREME
COURT 1189
 G.K. Krishna vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1975 SUPREME
COURT 583