LexBISHAMBHAR DAYAL CHANDRA MOHAN AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. I: BISHAMBHAR DAYAL CHANDR OTHERS ETC E A MOHAN AND . TC. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. November S, /98! [A. P. SEN AND BAHARUL [SLAM, JJ.J 1137 Uttar Prruinh Food Grains D~al~n ( Llc~lfs. ll!ld . Ord~r, 1976 and Ullar Prad~sh Food Grai~s ( p VII Re3trlctwn on Hoordillf) Ordtr, 1978, clause (4) a.r amood~d by Notlfi:a~;o:e::::~~~~=1r.r;,adt) dartd April 21, 1981-Ttllpr/nttr Musagt ls.su~d bu IM St G ( -J/BO March J/ 1981 d' ·' ~ au OYtrnmtlfl datetl , regar: 1118 en,orcetMnl of t/w Ordn,_cq1Utitl4li lUll fd' t/ Articles U, 19(/)(g), /62, JOOA ll!ld 301 o/tk CoiUrftUJioll of /;Ia. 1a' tty o- Conztllllliolt of India, Article 32-Juri$1/ktioll of the Supnmt Court 10 illrlstiKate Into facu, up/a/ned. " Worth Qlll/ pltrasu-" Law" occurrill/f ;, Artic/4 300A "at Q/IY time'' Qfld rtLJsonah/e ustrktion'', m~ani11g of, In exercise or the powers vestetl under the Essential Commodities Act, 1951, the State Government of Uuar Pratl~h issued two orders, namely (I} the Uttar Prade$h Food Grains Dealers (Licensing and R~triction on Hoarding) Order, 1976 and (2) the Uttar Pradesh Food Grains (Procurement and Regulation of Trade) Order 1978. By irs teleprinter messase dated M:ucll 31, 1981 to all the . I ~egional Food Controllers, the State Government issued certain further instruc- .t ~IOns '?r ~ffectivc enforcement of the two 01ders aod io parricular regulatin~ the .J( tDICr·dJstnct and outside the State-movement of wheat by traders on pnvatc account, By a Notification No. P-XXIX-Food·S·S(42)/80 dared April21, 1981, clause (4) of the t97tl Order, was amended providing that no wholesale dealer, commission asent, or 1 retuiler shall have in stock wheat more than 250 quintals, 2SO quintals and 20 qui mats IC'pc<:tively, at any time, since it was of 0~1n!on that it was occcssary or 0,.pedieot so to do for sccurins the equitable dtstnbutlon and availability ot foodgrsiDI at fair prices. Pursuant to the powcu vc.trd in !hem, the Senior Marketing Inspector and 1~ Chief Murk~tioalnspector, Aara, Intercepted aod seized the truds laden wu~ Wheat o( tho petitioners wh" oru wholcs.1~ dcalen of foodgrains from the tlnron Territory of Delhland the States of PunJ'Ib and Haryaaa at the check Post at Saiyan 00 the border between tbe Slates of Uuar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, and after brinaina thcnt back to the_ ~ucchasc point at Ag~ un_loaded tha Wheat from the said trudts. While the peuuoners moved an apphcatron for tbc release o( the ac:iud wheat before the Additional District Maaisuate (Civil Supplies), Aara, tho Marketina Inspectors not only lodged Fint Information B c l) .( \ . E F G H A 8 c D E F G H 1138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982} 1 s.c.R. Reports but obtained an interim order on M;ay 23, 1981 for the sale of the seized wheat as it was subject to speedy and natural decay. The seized wheat had been purchased by the State Government on Government account at the procurement price and the sale proceeds were credited into the treasury. The petitioners challenged the teleprinter message dated March 31, 1981 and the Notification dated April 21, 1981 on the following grounds : (1) The Notification fixing the maximum limit of wheat permitted to be possessed by a wholesale dealer at 250 quintals, at a time, is an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of trade guaranteed under Article 19(1 )(g) of the Constitution; (2) there is no distinction made between a wholesale dealer and a commission agent in as much as the maximum limit of wheat allowed to be possessed by them is the same, i.e., 250 quintals at a time and the fixation of such limit in the case of a wholesale dealer is arbitrary, irrational and irrelevant and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution; (3) the instructions conveyed by the State Govern- ment by its teleprinter message dated March 31, 1981, placing restrictions on movement of wheat by traders on private account from the State of U.P. to various other States and on inter-district movement of wheat within the State, were violative of their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 301 of the Constitution; (4) the seizure of the consignments of the wheat, while they were in transit in the course of inter-State trade and commerce from the Union Territory of Delhi and the States of Punjab and Haryana to various destinations in the States of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, was without "the authority of law'' and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.