CHINTA LINGAM & ORS. versus GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1971] 2 S.C.R. 871 · Decided: 30-11-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
871 
CHINTA LINGAM & ORS. 
v. 
GO\'.ERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. 
November 30, 1970 
'1· C. SHAH, G. K. MITTER, K, S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER 
AND A. N. RAY, JJ.] 
Ess.ntial C:ommoditi~s. Act, 1955 (Act 10 of 1'955), s, 3{1) and 
s. 3(2)(d)-0piniqn of Central Government under s. 3(1) wheth_er must 
be recited in Control Order-Order whether invalid without such recital-
Section 3(2) (d) whether suffers from excessive delegation-Absence of 
provision· for appec.·l or re1:ision against order of District Collector or 
Deputy Commission.er of Civil Supplies whether creates unreasonable 
restrlction on· the right to carry on business under Constitution of India. 
Art. '!9(1) (/). 
Practice-Plea for whii:h adequate foundation has not been laid in 
the pleadings could not he entertained. 
The appellants who were adversely affected by the Rice (Southern 
Zone) Movement Control Order. 1957, the Southern States (Regulation 
of Exports of Rice) Order, 1964, and the Andhra Pradesh Rice· and 
Paddy (Restriction of Movement) Order 1965, moved petitions under 
Art. 226 of th1t Constitution of India in the High Court of Andhra Pra· 
desh challenging the validity of these orders. 
The petitions were dis-
missed by the High Court.. In appeal before this Court by special leave 
as well as in a writ petition under Art. 3.2 of the Constitution the follow-
ing contentions we're advanced before this Court : ( i) The said Control 
Orders offended Art. 303 of the Constitution in as much as they suffered 
from the vice of discrimination between one State and another and of 
preference to one State over an other; (ii) the orders were in the nature 
of executive instructions and did not fall within the meaning of subordi-
nate legislation; (iii) even if they cculd be regarded as subordinate legis-
lation they could not be saved under s. 303 ( 2) in the absence of the 
declaration contemplated thereby; (iv) the requisite opinion of the Cen-
tral Government within s. 3 (I) of the Essential Supplies Act was not 
found in any of the orders; (v) the Control Orders imposed unreasonable 
restrictions on the right of the petitioners to carry on trade, as arbitrary, 
powers had l>een conferred in the matter of issuing or withholding permits 
and there were no provisions for appeal or revision against refusal to 
grant a permit; (vi) s. 3(2)(d) suffers from excessive delegation. 
HELD : ( i) The first three contentions could not be· entertained since 
no firm foundation had l>een laid in respect of them in the pleadings. 
[875 G-876 B} 
(ii) There was no 0ecessity of reciting the requisite opinion within 
s. 3 (I) of the Act in the Control Orders. U is implicit in the recital in 
the CC>ntrol Ql-ders that they were being m:ide undet s. 3 of the Act, 
that the Central Government had formed the requisite .:ipinion within 
subs-s. (I) of that section. [876 B-CJ 
(iii) The permit could be granted either by the State Government 
or by responsible officers of the rank of the District Collector or the 
Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies. If the State Government alone 
872 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1971] 2 $.C.R 
had the power, to issue the permits the challenge ·on the ground of 
A 
unreasonableness of the restrictions would admittedly not be available. 
There IS no ba'r to any of the aggrieved parties approaching the State 
'Government by means of a representation for a final decision even if the 
m~tter has bee~ ,dealt with by the District Collector or the Deputy Com-
missioner of CIVll Supphes m the first instance and the permit has been 
refused or wrongly withheld by those officers, 
In these circumstances the 
absence of a provision for appeal or revision can be of no consequenc~. B 
It has been pointed out in more than one decision of this Court that when 
·the power has to be exercised by one of the highest officers the fact that 
.no appeal has been provided for is a matter of no moment. 
[876 D-877 BJ 
MI s. Dwarka Prasad L<xmi Nai·ain v. State of Uttar Pradesh & 
:2 Ors. [1954) S.C.R. 803, K. L: Gupta v .. Bomb•y Municipal Corporation 
.&: Ors. [19'68) I S.C.R. Z14, 297 and Pannalal Binjraj v, Union of India, c 
[1957) S.C.R, 233, 257, referred to. 
(iv) The question whether s. 3(2) (d) suffers from the vice of exces-
sive delegation was no longer at large. 
In Bhana Mal Gulzari Mal's case 
the attack on s. 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 
1946 which was similar in terms to s. 3 of the Act on the ground of 
exc.

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