ATLAS CYCLE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1979] 1 S.C.R. 1070 · Decided: 04-10-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

l 
1070 
A 
ATLAS CYCLE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
October 4, 1978 
B 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JASWANT SINGH AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Essential Commodities 
Act 1955 (Act 10 of 1955)-Smion 3(6)-Re-
quirement as to laying before both Iiouses of Parlia1nent-Dirrctory not 
niandatory-Non-lying of notification fixing the maxitnum selling prices of 
variousi categories of controlfr:d commodities before both Houses of Parlia-
ment-Whether results in nullification of the notification. 
Delegated Legislation-Provisions relating to laying of delegafl':'d legisla-
tion of subordinate law making authorities and orders passed by subordinate 
executive 
instrumentalities 
before 
both 
Tfouses 
of 
Parlian1ent-"Layi11g 
clause~"-Examined and discussed. 
The appellants were prosecut.ed for the offence of acquiring a controlled 
commodity at a rate higher than the maximum statutory price fixed for such 
commodity by the Iron & Steel Controller under Cl. 15 ( 1 ) of the Iron 
& 
Steel Control Order, 1956. 
In the course of proceedings 
before the 
trial 
court the appellants made an application u/s 251A & 288 Cr.P.C. raising 
various objections to their prosecution including, that the notification 
fixing 
maximum selling prices of various categories of Iron & Steel including the 
commodity in question was not placed before the Pnrliament and as 
such 
was not valid. 
Observing that the laying of the notification before the Parlia-
ment could be proved by contemporaneous record and 
that 
it 
was 
not 
possible to hold that congnizance of the offence was taken on 
an invalid 
report and the order framing the charge was a nullity the trial Court dismissed 
the application. 
In its writ petition filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the 
appellants challenged their prosecution on the ground that the control order and 
the notification did not have the force of law as they had not been laid before 
the Houses of Parlian1ent '"'ithin a reasonable time as required by the Essential 
Commodities Act. The High Court dismissed the "\Vrit petition. 
On the question, whether the notification fixing the maximum selling price 
G 
of the commodity was void, for not having been laid before both Houses of 
Parliament. 
H 
Dismissing the appeal. the Court 
HELD : 1. Non-laying of the notification fixing the maximum 
selling 
prices of various categories of iron and steel including the commcxlity in 
question before both Houses of Parliament cannot result in nullification o.f 
the notification. The legislature never intended that non-compliance with the 
requirement of laying as envisaged by section 3(6) of the Act should render 
the order void. 
[1088 C, Bl 
I --
1 
I 
' 
• 
' 
• 
• 
ATLAS CYCLE LTD. V. HARYANA 
1071 
·2. Though section 3 ( 6) of the Act provides that every order made by 
A 
the Central Government or by any officer or authority of the Central Govern-
ment shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as 
may 
be 
after it is made, the important point to be c.onsidered in the absence of a 
provision prescribing the conditions, the period and the legal effect 
of the 
laying of the order before the Parliament is whether the provision is 
direc-
tory or mandatory. The use of the word 'shall' is 11ot conclusive and decisive 
of the matter and the Court has to ascertain the true intention of the legisla-
B 
ture, which is the determining factor, and that must be 
done 
by looking 
,carefully to the whole scope~ nature and design of the statute. 11078 C-EJ 
State of U.P. v. Monbodhan Lal Srfrastava, [1958] S.C.R. 533, The State 
<>f Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Baba Ram Upadhya, [1961] 2 S.C.R. 679 re-
:ferred to. 
Craies Statute Law 5th Edn. p. 242. 
3. Two considerations for regarding a prov1s1on as directory are : ( 1) 
absence of any provision for the contingency of a particular provision not 
been complied with or followed and (2) serious general inconvenience and 
prejudice that would result to the general public if the act of the government 
or an instrumentality is declared invnlid for non-compliance with the 
parti-
cuJar provision. [1079 CJ 
4. The policy and object underlying the prov1s1ons 
relating to 
laying 
the de1ega·ted legislation made by the subordinate law making authorities or 
orders ·passed by subordinate executive instrumentalities before both Houses 
of Parliament, being to keep supervision and control' over 
the 
aforesaid 
authorities and instrumentalities, th

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