NEW INDIA SUGAR WORKS ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 29 · Decided: 27-02-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

29 
NEW INDIA SUGAR WORKS ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. 
February 27, 1981 
' [S. MU.RTAZA FAZAL Au AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
B 
Retrospective operation of law-Order levying· duty on Khandsari issued-
Order, whet.her applies to existing stocks or only to future stockSc--Price fixed 
less than manufacturing cost-Order, if liable to be quashed. 
On the questions (I) whether an order imposing a levy on Khandsari could 
have retrospective operation so as to apply to sugar 1manufactured prior to the 
date of the order and (2) whether in fixing the price of levy sugar the Government 
C 
should consider that the price fixed should be sufficient to •cover ihe manufactur-
ing cost. 
HELD : L It is not the question of retrospectivity of a statute but its 
actual working that is relevant.. It is settled law that where a statute operates 
in future it cannot be said to be retrospective merely because within the sweep of 
its operation all existing rights are included. Once the notifieation for imposing 
the levy was made it will naturally apply to the existing stocks of khandsari with 
the petitioners irrepsective of whether it was manufactured before or after . the 
order. [31B; 30G] 
2; The policy of price control has for its dominant object equitable ·disJ 
tribution and availability of: the commodity at fair price to benefifthe consumers; 
Individual interest, however. precious, must yield to the larger interest of the 
community namely the consumers. Even if the petitioners have to b~ar some loss 
there could be no question of the 
restrictions imposed on· ·'them being 
unreasonabfo. [32 Bl . 
' ~-' . 
The fixation of price would be in the interest of consumers rather than that 
of the producers.. Moreover since the petitioners were allowed to ·sell freely at 
any rate they: liked, the.remaining 50% of sugar after, e~cluding the 50% w)lich 
they had \o give to levey as also the produce by the second anf} third processes, 
the loss; if any, caused to the petitioners, would be mini~nal. (32 G] . 
· 
'\, .. 
ORIGIJ"AL JURISDICTION: 
Writ .Petition•Nos. 896/81,,, 8Q~~8901 
577~591, 592-606,. 6Q7-621,. 622:628,. 629-633, ; 634-37,·; 964~88, 544. 
545-575, 766-774; 775-776, 902-63, 897-901, 535-37, 532-J<J,, 529-$31,; 
639and540-43/8L 
., 
., .. 1 
,,.,, .. 
. 
. 
. . . 
· (Under Article 32 of the Constlt~tio.n) 
' 
. 
' 
. 
' 
' 
. ''1 
R.K. Puri for the Petitioners 'hiWP 8'96/81; '• ; 
'' 
Vimal D~ve for the Petitioners in WPs 865:890/81. 
A.K. Sen; R.M. Dube and Sal'va Mitter for' the 'Petitio~ers in 
WPs 540-43/81. 
D 
F 
30 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1981] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Soli J. Sorabjee, S.S. Ray, A.K. Sen and R.K. Jain for the 
Petitioners in WPs 529·37, 544-575, 577-638, 766-776 and 897-988/81. 
S.S. Ray, Soli J. Sorabjee and R.K. Jain for the Petitioners in 
WPs 634-37/81. 
Lal Narain Sinha, Attorney General, O.P. Rana, and Mrs. S. 
B 
Dikshit for the Respondent (State of U.P.) in WPs 540-43, 529-37, 
540-43, 544-77 and 5.77-638/81. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MK. Banerjee Addi. Sol. Genl. and S.K. Gambhir for the State 
of Madhya Pradesh. 
Miss A. Subhashini for Union of India. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
FAZAL ALI, J. Having heard counsel for the parties at great 
length we are satisfied that there is no violation of the fundamental 
right of the petitioners enshrined in Art. l 9(1)(g) of the Constitution 
of India nor is Art. 14 attracted to the facts of the present case. 
There is, therefore, no good ground to entertain the petitions. We 
would, however, like to add that on the materials placed before 
us the Government may consider the desirability of adopting such 
measures as may soften the rigours of the impugned orders which, 
though not arbitrary or excessive so as to violate Art. 14 or 19, do 
merit some consideration by the Government in order to effectuate 
the policy under which the impugned notification was made. 
There are, however, two arguments urged before us which need 
special mention. In the first place it was submitted that in th~ U.P. 
cases the order impugned imposing a levy on the khandsai·i pro-
duced by the petitioners cannot have any retrospective operation so 
as io apply to the stock of sugar manufactured prior to the date 
of the order and would apply only to the sugar produced after the 
coming into force of the impugned notification. So far as this 
argunment is concerned we find no substance in the same because it 
is not a question of retrospectivity of the statut

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