LexRAM CHANDRA MAWA LAL AND OTHERS ETC. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• A B c. D E F G , .H 348 RAM CHANDRA MAWA LAL AND OTHERS ETC. v. STATE OF UITAR PRADESH ANJ? OTHERS ETC. January 9, 1984 [S. MURTAZA FAZA)'., Au, A. VARADA.RAJAN AND M.P. THAKKAR. JJ.] Defence of India Rules, 1971 pro111ulgated under'De}ence of Jncli~ Act. 1971- Rllle 114-Inrerpretation of-Wh6ther State Govern111e11t can fix price of Im article declared to be essential c;ornn1odity under the Essential Conunodities Act, 1955 in , respect of which Central Government has alrearlv fixed priee under Fertilizer (Control)' Ofcler, 1957 pron111Jftated under the Essen;ial Co1111nodities Act, /955. Defence of flu/ia Rules, 1971-Rule 114 (3) (h)-Scope <~/'-Expression •any'· article-includes fertilize_rs. Interpretation-Rule of-What is test for ascertaining whethe;. conflict between. Central and State statf/tes irreconcila~le . . Uttar .Pradesh Fertilizer Prices (S11pple1nentary) Order, 1974-Validity of On ()ctober 11, · 1973, the Central Govenuncnt in ~en.:'ise of power under cl. (3) of the Fertilizers (Control) Order, 1957 pron1ulgated under s. 3 of the Essential Commoditic5 Act, 1955; issued a notification fixing the maximun1 retail selling price of certain fertilizer \vhich de'alers t:ould charge from consu1ners leaving with the dealers a ve,y .low margin of profit. S1nnc time later in order to con1pcnsate the manufacturers for the higher cost of inputs, the Central Governn1ent issued another notification on June J, 197 4 fixing a very high retail selling price of the fertilizer to be charged by the dealers fro111 the consumers. The dealers Started charging the higher price fixed by notification dated June I, 1974 even for the st~cks of fertilizer acquired by· them prior to June 1, 1974 at the lower rate thus earning fabulous profit. Qn June l t, 1974 the State of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification-(Uttar Pradesh Fartilizcr Prices (Supplen1entary) Order, 1974) in exercise of power under rule.114 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971 promulgated under the Defence of India Act, 1971. This notification stated that the st0cks of fertilizer acqu1red upto May 31,1974 .PY 'the dealers and which remt:iincd unsold with them should be sold only at the.price fixed by the Central Govcrn1nent's notification dated October I J, 1973 and not by notification of June l, 1974. The appellant<; (dealers) challenged before the Hit;h Court the legality and validity of the Staie Governn1ent's notification dated June 14, 197 4 on the grounds: (I) that the fertilizer in qu'eStion having been declared an essential commodity under the Essential Co1ninodities Act, 1955, an Act specia-I!y enacted inter alia for regulating!prices of essential comn1odities, its price . could be regulated only under that Act and not under the Defence of India Rules; (2) that the notification being inconsi5tcnt with the Central <!overninent's notifica- tion dated June l 1974 was invalid; and (3) that the notification being discrimina- tory was violativ~ of Art. ·14 of the C0nstiiution .. The High Court upheld the j ) t • RAMCHANDRA MA\VALAL V, U. P. STATE ~ \'.alidity·of the impugned notification and dis1nissed the writ petitions. ~;1ppeals. ~ · Disn1issing the appeals by 1najority, HELD: .. (Per Mu:·taza.Fazal Ali and Thakkar, JJ.) 349 Hence.the.'$C . Both the Essential Con1111oditirs Act. 195?', as slso the Defence of India Rules of !971, are Central legislation:5 enacted b) the Parliament. There i.!I no onst1tutional or jurisprudential limitation on. th~ c.on1petcnce of the Parlian1ent to reate two avenues or sources of power for the regulation of prices of articles. (fince ParJian1ent cin constitutionally Jnd validly enact two statutes creating two • sources of power, and since, under both the statutes prices of fertilizers c.in be ~ . n;gulated, there is no illegality in acting under 'either· or 'both'. [357 D·EJ Under the DIR po~er has been conferred, inter a/ia. to fcqulale the price of'any.' article. The expression ·any article' is wide enough in its ~mplitude to lilt.. , envelope 'fertilizers'. The fact that 'fertilizers' have been declared .as an ~essential commodity under the Essential Con1n1odities_ Act, .1955 and its price can be reguhitcd under the powers conferred by that Act, iS altogether in1material. f357 H; 3~8 A] The Centre and· the State both cannot speak on the sa1ne cbannel and create disharmony.. If both speak, the voice of the Centro will drown the voice of the Sta
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.