RAMANATHAN versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

Citation: [1985] 2 S.C.R. 1028 · Decided: 27-02-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
I 
D 
1Q28 
K. RAMANATHAN 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. 
February !7, 1985 
[A. P. SEN, A. VARADARAJAN AND V. BALAKTISHNA ERADl, ]1.] 
Co•1tlt11tlme oflndla 1950, Am. U, 19 (1) (2) (f) a11d 301 
&sentlal Commodities Act; 1955, ss. 3 (1) & (2) and 5-Pow~r under 
sMb·s. (J)-Whether teneralln nature-Sub-s. (2)-Whetur confers any fresh 
}lOwer-Whether i/lustratiYe of power con/trred by ~ub-s. ( 1)-C/. (d) of 1ub-s. 
(2)-WAether contains specific power-Making of Orders by State Government 
. under cls. (.s) to (j) of sub-s. 2-Sourct of power-Witetlter /fows from sub-s, 
(I)- Delegation of-By notification under s. 5 
&sent tal CommoditleJ-Tamll Nadu Paddy (Restriction on Mcwement) 
Order, 1Ji82-CI. 3 (lA), issued by Stat• Gournm•nt JUUier s, 3 read with 
Ministry ~1 AKrlc•lt~~Tt (Dep.,tment ~1 P•od) 9r~er, G. S. R. 800 dt . June 9, 
1973-Pioclfll ban on transport, movement or otAer11ise carrying of 'Paddy out 
of certain specified are as in th1 State-Whether 111 exc:e.1.1 of delegatea powerJ 
-Whetlter riolatlvt of Articles 14, 19 (])(g) and 301. 
Section 3 (2) (d)-Whether 'regulating• includes in the context 'pro· 
Albltlnz'. 
Interpretation of statutes-Whether some words may be used In different 
F 
senus in the 5ame stntence. 
G 
H 
Words and phrases-' Regulation' and' Prohlblting'-M,aninK and scop' of 
Due to failure of monsoon in the years 1981·8l, there was a steep 
fall . in production or paddy and it became necestary for the State Govern· 
ment of Tamil Nadu to build up its buffer stocks for distribution tbrough 
lhe public distribution system tbrouahout the State. 
In the circumstances, 
the Statt Government had no other alternatiTe but to introduce a mono· 
l'OlY procurement tcbemc with a view to procure tho maximum stock of 
11addy by banning purchase by traders. 
This was in addition to compulsory 
levy on dealers of paddy aod rice to the extent of 50% under cl. S (1) of 
tko Tamil Nadu Paddy & llice (Replation of Trade) Order, 1974. 
I • 
1 
IC. RAMANATHAN v. TAMIL NADU 
1029 
In exercise of the powers conferred under s. 3 of the Essential Com· 
modi ties Act, l95S read with the Government of India, Ministry of A&ri~ 
culture (Department of Food) Order GSR 800 dated June 9, 1978 issued 
under s. 5 of the Act with the prior concurrence of the Government of 
India, the State Government accordingly promulgated the Tamil Nadu 
Paddy (Restriction on Movement) Order, 198l on October 22, 1982. 
Clause 3 (lA) of the Order prohibited transport, movement or otherwise 
carrying or paddy outsitle the State by road or rail or otherwise eacept 
under and in accordance with the conditions of a permit issued by an officer 
authorised in that behalf. 
By GOMS No. 293 dated May 11, 1981 the 
State Government introduced sub-cl. (1A) to cl. 3 of the Order which pro-
hibited transport; movement or otherwise carrying of paddy outside places 
notified by cl. 3 of the Order by road or rail or otherwise. 
Thereafter, on 
June 20, 1983, the State Government made a further amendment to the 
newly inserted cl. 3 (lA) which clamped a complete ban on transport, 
movement or otherwise carrying of paddy outaide tho Thaojavur District, 
Chidambararo and Kattumannarkoil Taluks in South Arcot District and 
Musiri, Kulitbalai, Lalaudi and Tiruchirapalli Taluks in Tiruchirapalli 
District. 
The appellant alona with other traders assailed tho constitutional 
validity or ct. 3 (lA) of the Order, as amended, which placed a complete 
ban on transport, movement or otherwise carrying of paddy outside the 
Thanjavur 
di~trict and the aforesaid Taluks in South Arcot and Tiruchira-
palli districts as being violative of Arts. 1-4, 
1911)\g) aDd 30 1 of the 
Constitution 
The High Court repelled the contentions and dismissed the 
writ petitions. 
In the appeal, the appellant contended that the impugned cl. 3 ( lA) 
of the Order was ultra vlrts the Slate Government on two grounds, namely : 
(I) The delegation of a specific power under s. 3 (2) (d) of the Act to State 
Govert.ment by the aforesaid notification dated June 9, 1978 issued by the 
Central Government under s. 5 of the Act to regulate storage, transport, 
distribution, dispo~al etc. of an essential commodity, in relation to food· 
stuffs, does not carry with it the general power of the Central Government 
under sub-s. (1) of s. 3 to regulate or prohibit the production, supply and 
distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein. 
And (2) That the 
word 'regulating' in c!. (d) of s. 3 {2) o

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