LexP.P. ENTERPRISES ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
510
P.P. ENTERPRISES ETC. ETC.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ETC.
March !6, 1982
(S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND RB. MISRA, JJ.]
Sugar (Control) Order 1966, clause 5 read with Order No. G.S.R. 410·
E/Ess. Com./Sugar dated 14-7·1980-0rdtr prescribing maximum quantity of sugar
(Vacuum J!an Sugar) and Khandsari (Open Pan Sugar) to be kept in stock,
whether violativt of Artie/ts 14 and 19(J){g) of th• Constitution and also ultra
vires section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Jn exercise of powers conferred by section 3 of the Essential Commodi·
ties Act, 1955, Sugar Control Ordc~ 1966 was issued by the Government of
India, Ministry of Agriculture Clause S of that Order empowered the Central
Government to issue directions, inter a/J'a, to recognised dealers regarding produc-
tion, maintenance of stock, storage, sale, grading, packing, making weighment,
disposal, delivery and distribution of sugar.
By Order No. GSR-410-E/Ess. Com./Sugar dated 14·7·1980, the Central
Government issued directions to the effect that no recognised dealer shall keep in
stock at anytime (a) Vacuum pan sugar in excess of, (i) in Calcutta and other -
extended area recognised dealers who irnport sugar from outside West Bengal?
3500 quintals; other recognised dealers 250 quintals; (ii) in other places in
cities and towns with a population of one lakh or more 250 quintals and with a
population of less than one lakb 100 quintals and (b) Khandsari (open pan sugar)
250 quintals. Further no recognised dealer shall hold any stock of vacuum pan
sugar or khandsari (open pan sugar) for a peripd exceeding 10 days from the
date of receipt by hi.m of such stock of sugar or khandsari.
The recognised dealers, therefore, assailed the constitutional validity of
the said Order on three groundS : (1) the impugned order is not covered by
section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and is ultrtJ vtres; (2) the impugned
order imposes unreasonable restrictions on the right of the petitioners to carry
on their trade and so it is violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution: (3)
the impugned order is also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution for two
reasons: (a) the petitioners have been singled out for hostile treatment from other
dealers of sugar at Calcutta: (b) the impugned order is unreasonable and
impracticable.
Dismissing the petitions, the Court
HELD: 1, The order dated 14·7·1980 is not ultrq vires section 3 of the
Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The expression "to secure their equitablo
•
).-
-
-;.
, ..
~
I
P.P. BNTERPRUBS v. UNION
511
distribution and availability at fair prices", is wide enough to cover the impugned
order. Likewise, the expression ''storage and distribution" used in clause (d)
of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 should be
given a liberal construction to give effect to the legislative intent of public
welfare. Sugar, which term includes khaodsari, is an essential commodity and
over the years it has become a scarce commodity.
In the public interest it
became essential·to pass the order tci secure its eq:.1itable distribution and availa~
bility at fair prices. To that end it became ;nocessary to prevent hoarding and
black-marketing. (515 F-H, 516 A-El
2. Restrictions put by the impugned order can by no means be said to be
unreasonable, lt is only regulatory and not prohibitory. The direction erijoineci a
recognised dealer not to keep sugar in stock at a,ay time in excess of the q\iantity
specified therein. It only s'eeks to regulate the limit of storage of sugar and
does not prohibi.t its storage. By the impugned order the Central Government
sought to prevent hoarding and black·marketing, and to ensure equitable distri·
bution and availability of sugar at fair prke:i in th;! op;!n market. [516 B, Sl9 DJ
A person has a right to carry on any occupation, trade or business and
the only restriction on this unfettCred right is the authority of the-State to make
a law imposing reasonablC restrictions under clause (6). The expression 'reasona-
ble restrictions' signifies that the limitation imposed on a person in enjoyment of
that right should not be arbitrary _or of an oxcessive nature beyond what is
required in the interest of the public. No cut and dry test can be applied to each
individual statute impugned, nor an abstract standard or· general pattern of
reasonableness can be laid down as applicable in all caseS. ThExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.