the trade of tendu leaves and under s. 5 ( 1) thereof prohibited anyone, excepting those mentioned therein, either to purchase or tra.n&port tendu leavr.s. Sub-s. 2 of s. 5, however, pennitted a grower to traruport them within the unit where they grow and a purchaser who has purchased them from the State Government, its authorised officers and agents for manufacturing bidis or for exporting outside the State to transport them outside such unit under a permit and in 11ccordance with the terms lli!ld conditions thereof. By virtue oi s. 19 the State Government framed rules called the Madhya Pradesh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Niyamavali, 1965 (referred to hereinafter as the rules). Rule 9 of the said rules provided for an application for a transport permit in form M and the issuance of such pennit in form N. The appellants accordingly applied for and obtained permits authorising them 10 transport tendu leaves purchased by them from th-: various forest unit~ to their godowns situate outside those units. In the course of their business the appellants transport the said leaves first from the said units to their warehouses, frDr.l there to their branches and thereafter distribute them and tobacco to their sattedars, who are independent cantractors, and who in their tum distribute the said leaves and tobacco to various mazdoors living in different villages for rolling the bidis. According to the practice of the appellants, the said sattedars enter into contracts with them under which the appellants supply to them the said leaves and the tobacco and the sattedars deliver to the appellants bidis rolled by the mazdoors in proportion to the quantity of the leaves and tobacco supplied to them. On June 4. 1965, the Divisional Forest Officer issued an order which forbade altogether movement of old tendu leaves and as regards new leaves provided that their movement from one village to another had to be covered by a permit. It also provided that permits would be oiecessary for bulk transport from warehouses to branches and from there to sattedars, and that such permits would be issued by range assistants and range officers on receipt of applications therefor. The appellants thereupon made a representation to the Divisional Forest Officer mentioni.ng the several difficulties which would result from the said order and the said officer, by his order dated June 8, 1965, in partial modification of his said order, permitted branch managers of bidi manufacturing finns themselves to issue transport permits to sattedars. Finding, however, that instead of distributing the said leaves to the sattedars, the branch managers were issuing permits for bulk transport, the said officer on October 12, 1965 rescinded his order of June 8, 1965. The result was that the appellants were required to obtain permits for moving the tendu leaves from their branch offices to the sattedars. The appellants thereafter filed the said writ petition i:n the High Court claiming that nnder s. 5 and the said rules they were required to obtain permits only when moving the leaves purchased by them from units where
