CH. TIKA RAMJI & OTHERS, ETC. versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS.

Citation: [1956] 1 S.C.R. 393 · Decided: 24-04-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Disposed off

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

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
393 
grounds on which the detention is based and the 
nature of activities imputed therein to the appellant. 
It is unnecessary, therefore, to deal in this case with 
a theoretical contention as to whether or not article 
22(6) of the Constitution overrides the constitutional 
right to be furnished particulars under article 22(5) 
to the extent of denying all particulars and leaving 
the grounds absolutely vague. 
All the contentions raised before us fail and this 
appealis dismissed. 
CH. TIKA RAMJI & OTHERS, ETC. 
v. 
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS. 
(S. R. DAS, C.J., BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR, 
B. P. SINHA and JAFER IMAM JJ.] 
Sugarcane, Regulation of Supply and Purchase of-Act passed 
by State Legislature and notifications issued thereunder by the State 
Government-Constitutional validity-If repugnant to Parliamentary 
Acts and notifications made thereunder-If violative of fundamental 
rights-Parliament's power of repeal-Delegation of siich power, if 
permissible-U.P. Sugarcane (Regitlation of Supply and Pitrchase) 
Act, 1958 (U.P. Act XXIV of 1958), ss. 15, 16-U.P. Sugarcane 
Regulation of Supply and Purchase Order, 1954-Industries (Develop-
ment and Regulation) Act, 1951 (Act LXV of 1951) as amended by 
Act XXVI of 1958, ss. 18-G, 15, 16-Essentfo.l Commodities Act, 
1955 (Act X of 1955), s. 16(1)(b)-Sugarcane Control Order, 1956, 
cl. '1(1)-Constitution of India, Arts. 14, 19(1)(c), (J) and (g), 81, 
801, 804, 254. 
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the 
U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act of 1953, 
and two notifications issued by the State Government on September 
27, 1954 and November 9, 1955, the former under sub-sec. l(a) read 
with sub-sec. 2(h) of s. 16 of the impugned Act providing that where 
not less than three-fourths of the canegrowers ·within the area of 
operation of a Canegrowers' Co-operative Society were members 
thereof, the occupier of the factory to which that area is assigned 
should not purchase or enter into an agreement to purchase cane 
except through that society and the latter under s. 15 of the Act 
assigning to different sugarcane factories specified cane-purchasing 
centres for supply to them of sugarcane for the crushing season of 
1955-56. They contended that the impugned Act was itltra vires the 
1956 
Lau·re11ce Joac/1im 
Joseph D'So11za 
v. 
Tile State of 
Bombay 
]agannadliadas J. 
1956 
April 24 
1956 
Ch. Tika Ra1nji 
and others, etc. 
v. 
Tl1e State of 
l1ttur Pradesh 
and others 
394 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1956] 
State Legislature, the subject·matter of legislation being within the 
exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament, and repugnant to Act LXV of 
1951 and Act X of 1955 passed by Parliament and that as. 15 and 
16(l)(a) and (2)(b) and the two notifications infringed their funda-
mental rights under Arts.14, 19(l)(c), (f) and (g) and 31 and violated 
the provisions of Art. 301 of the Constitution. 
Held, (1) that the impugned Act and the notifications issued 
thereunder were intra vires the State Legislature, did not infringe 
any fundamental rights of the petitioners nor violated the provi· 
sions of Art. 301 of the Constitution and the petitions must be dis· 
missed; 
(2) that the Central Acts in respect of sugar and sugarcane and 
the notifications thereunder having been enacted and made by the 
Central Government in exercise of concurrent jurisdiction under 
Entry 33 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution as 
amended by the Constitution (Third Amendment) Act of 1954; the 
State Legislature was not deprived of its jurisdiction thereunder and 
no question of legislative incompetence of the U.P. Legislature or 
its trespassing upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the centre in enact-
ing the impugned Act could arise; 
(3) that the provisions of the impugned Act compared to 
those of the Central Acts clearly showed that the impugned Act 
was solely concerned with the regulation o! the supply and 
purchase of sug<l.rcane and in no way trenched upon the exclusive 
jurisdiction of the Centre with regard to sugar and the U.P. 
Legislature was, therefore, quite competent to enact it; 
(4) that no question of repugnancy under Art. 254-of the 
Constitution could arise where Parliamentary Legislation and 
State Legislation occupied different fields and de,Jt with separate 
and distinct matters even though of a cognate and allied character, 
and that where, as in the present case, ther

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