LexPUNJAB TRADERS AND ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
PUNJAB TRADERS AND ORS. A v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. SEPTEMBER, 18, 1990 [K.N. SINGH, T.K. THOMMEN AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.] B East Punjab Molasses (Control) Acr, 1948-Ss. 2(c) 2(f), 3, 3A, 4, 6, 8 & 13-C/arificatnry amendment of by East Punjab Molasses (Control) Amendment Act, 1973-Constitu(ional validity of. , Constitution of India: Articles 304(b) proviso, 305 & 366( 10)- East Punjab Molasses (Control) Act,· 1948-Existing Law-C/arifica- tory amendment of by East Punjab Molasses (Control) Amendment Act, 1973-Previous sanction of President-Whether mandatory. The East Punjab Molasses Control (Amendment) Act, 1973 sub- stituted the defmition of "molasses" in section 2(c) of the East l'inijab Molasses (Control) Act, 1948 to mean "the mother liquor produced in the final stage of manufacture of sugar or khandsari sugar". The unamended section 2(c) had hitherto referred only to sugar. Conse- quent changes were also made in other provisions of the Principal Act to give effect to the amendment. The appellants-dealers in khandsari molasses aggrieved by the expanded definition of molasses challenged the constitutionality of .the Amendment Act, 1973 on the ground that it had imposed direct and immediate restrictions upon their trade and commerce unsupported by the previous sanction of the President oflndia in terms of Article 304(b) c D E of the Constitution. F The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the appel- lants were not shown to have. been aggrieved solely by reason of the amendmerit on the view that their business had been in equal measure controlled by the Principal Act itself. In this appeal by special leave, the appellants reiterated their contentions advanced before the High Court. For the respondents it was contended that the provisions of the Amendment Act, 1973 were regu- latory measures enacted to facilitate trade and therefore they did not come within the ban of the proviso to clause (b) of Article 304 to require G the previous sanction of the President. H 499 A B c 500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1990] Supp. 1 S.C.R. Dismissing the appeal, the Court, HELD: I. The main object of the Amendment Act, 1973 was to clarify that the Principal Act applies in equal measure to a khandsari unit as it does to any other sugar factory. It was always well understood in trade that khandsari sugar was also sugar and that any reference to sugar, in the absence of specific exclusion or qualification, was capable of equal application to sugar of all kinds including khandsari. The Act did not become applicable to the appellants only as a result of the amendment. Even though persons who dealt with the statute may have understood its provisions in a restricted sense, such mistaken construc- tion of the statute did not bind the Court so as to prevent it from giving it its true construction. [316A-CJ I The Trustees of the Clyde Navigation v. Laird & Sons, 8 AC 658, 670 and National & Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. The Municipal Corpora- tion of Greater Bombay, [1969] I SCC 541, referred to. D 2. The Principal Act being an "existing law" within the meaning of Article 366(10) read with Article 305 of the Constitution, and /he provisions of the Amendment Act being clarificatory, the previous sanc- tion of the President was not required. [3160-E] Syed Ahmad Aga v. State of Mysore, [1975] Suppl. SCR 473, E referred to. ' CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1372 of 1980. From the Judgment and Order dated the 19.5.1980 of the Punjab F andHaryanaHighCourtinC.W.P.No.1378ofl973. G G.L. Sanghi, Vivek Gambhir, Dhruv Mehta, S.K. Gambhirnnd Surender Karnail for the Appellants. C.M. Nayar for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THOMMEN, J. This appeal by special leave arises from the Judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Perition No. 1378 of 1973. The appellants in the writ petition challenged the '1 H constitutionality of the East Punjab Molasses (Control) Amendment >'. f PUNJAB TRADERS v. STATE 01' PUNJAB [THOMMEN, J.] 501 Act. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Amendment Act, 1973") on the ground that the said amendment had not received the previous sanction of the President of India in terms of Article 304(b) of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellants were not shown to have been aggrieved by the impugned.amendment. The Amendment Act, 1973 amended th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.