LexM/S. DIWAN SUGAR & GENERAL MILLS (PRIVATE) LTD. AND OTHERS versus THE UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
123
M/S. DIWAN SUGAR & GENERAL MILLS
(PRIVATE) LTD. AND OTHERS
v.
THE UNION OF INDIA
(S. R. DAS, c. J., JAFER IMAM, s. K. DAS,
K. N. W ANclioo and M. HrnAYATULLAH, JJ.)
Sugar Control-Notification fixing price ex-factory-Legality
-Restrictions on right to trade-Discrimination-Sugar (Control)
Order, r955, cl. 5-Essential Commodities Act, I955 (IO of r955),
s. 5-Constitution of India, Arts. r4, r9(r)(g).
In exercise of the powers under s. 3 of the Essential Com-
modities Act, 1955, and under cl. 5 of the Sugar (Control) Order,
1955, the Government of India issued a notification dated July
30, 1958, fixing the ex-factory price per maund of sugar produced
in Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and North Bihar. The petitioners
challenged the legality o:t the notification on the grounds (1) that
it was beyond the ambit of authority conferred on the Central
Government under s. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955,
and clause 5 of the Sugar (Control) Order, 1955, and that, in any
case, it was bad as it could not subserve the purposes of the Act
ensuring equitable distribution of the commodity to the con-
sumer at a fair price, (2) that the Act and the Order did not
authorise the Central Government to fix ex-factory prices, and,
in aµy case, the notification failed to fix prices for the ultimate
consumer, (3) that it imposed an unreasonable restriction on the
right to trade under Art. l9(1)(g), inasmuch as it fixed the price
arbitrarily, and there was no reasonable safeguard against the
abuse of power, and (4) that it was discriminatory because it fixed
ex-factory prices only for factories in Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and
North Bihar and not for factories in other parts of liidia and
there was no reasonable classification discernible on any intelligi-
ble differentia on the basis of which prices had been controlled
in certain regions only.
Held, (1) The notification dated July 30, 1958, is within the
authority conferred on the Central Government by s. 3 of the
Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and cl. 5 of the Sugar (Control)
Order, 1955·
(2) Section 3 of the Act which provides for control of price
is very general in terms and authorises the Central Government
to fix the ex-factory price of sugar without fixing the wholesale
or retail prices ; and, since fair prices for the consumer are
ensured by fixing the ex-factory price, the notification in question
subserves the purposes of the Act, and is valid.
(3) Clause 5 of the Sugar (Control) Order, 1955, lays do~n
the factors which have to be taken into consideration in fixing
prices, and as the prices were fixed in accordance therewith, the
r959
January 23.
1959
Diwan Sugar &-
General Mills
(Private) Ltd.
v.
Union of India
124
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp.
action taken by the Government in the interests of the general
public could not be challenged on the ground that it was an un-
reasonable restriction on the right to carry on trade under Art.
rg(r)(g) of the Constitution.
(4) Though under the notification prices are fixed for fac-
tories only in Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and North Bihar, in effect,
they are fixed for the whole of India, as the other States are
deficit; consequently, the notification brougM about no discrimi-
nation between different regions.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:
Writ Petition No. 134 of
1958.
Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India for the Enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
N. C. Chatterjee, K. P. Mukherjee, P. D. Himat-
singhka and B. P. Maheshwari, for the petitioners.
M. C. SetalvarZ, Attorney-General for India, B. Sen
and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent.
J{. P. Khaitan, K. P. Mukherjee and B. P. Mahesh-
wari, for Interveners l to 10.
G. S. Pathak, K. P. Mukherjee and B. P. Mahesh-
wari, for lnterveners 11 to 13.
1959. January 23.
The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
-..
Wanchoo J.
WANCHOO, J.-This petition under Art. 32 of the
Constitution challenges the legality of the notification"
dated July 30, 1958, (hereinafter called the impugned
notification), issued by the Government of India fixing
the ex-factory price per maund of sugar produced in
Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and North Bihar. It has been
supported by two sets of interveners consisting of sugar
factories in these areas who did not join the petition.
The case of the petitioners is that the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 (X of 1955), (hereinafter called
the Act), was passedExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.