grounds. The first ground of attack is tl1at su1'-cl.(e) of cl. 5 of the Control Order, 1961 is ultra vires, because it goes beyond the powers granted . to the State Government under s. 3 read with s. 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The second ground of attack is that even if sub-cl. (e) of cl. 5 of tho Control Order, 1961, is intra vires being within the powers granted to the State Government, it merely allows the licensing authority to take into consideration, among other relevant matters, the circumstance that the applicant for a licence is a co-operative society; it docs not say that a monopoly right of procurement should be given in favour of a co-operative society by excluding all others; therefore, it was not open to the licensing authority to proceed on the footing as if that subclause had created a right of monopoly in favour of co-operatives. Tho argument is that in the present case the licensing authority instead of applying its mind to the provisions of cl. 5 of the Control Order, 1961, went by the instructions issued by the State Government to grant a right of monopoly to co-operative societies and based its order on such instructions, in spite of directions to tho contrary given by the High Court on earlier applications made by the petitioner. In other words, it is contended t.hat the impugned order was a mere colourable exercise of P'.•Wer in tho si·nse that instead of exercising tho powers in accordance with the provisions of law by which the licensing authority had to be guided, it acted in accordance with the instructions of the State Government and granted a monopoly in favour of co-operative societies, such monopoly not being contemplated by the provisions of cl. 5 of tho Control Order, 1961; therefore, the impugned order was bad being without any legal authority or jurisdiction, and as it took away the right of the petitioner to carry on his trade, and furthermore made a discrimination against him for the purpose of granting a monopoly to respondent No. 6 not contempla.ted by law, it violated the
