SAURASHTRA OIL MILLS ASSOCIATION, GUJARAT versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 1099 · Decided: 19-02-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SAURASHTRA OIL MILLS ASSOCIA T!ON, GUJARAT 
A 
V. 
ST A TE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 19, 2002 
[V.N. KHARE AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control Stock Declaration) Order, 
1981: 
Clause 24(1)-0rder issued under--Validity of 
Pulses and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 1977: 
Central Order-Deletion of item from- Effect on State Order. 
B 
c 
State of Gujarat-Order by-Amendment of earlier order-Substitution D 
of storage limits applicable to dealers in Edible Oils and Edible Oilseeds--
Held, valid-Deletion of Item 'Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils' from Central 
Order-State Order was not impliedly repealed- -There was no conflict between 
State and Central Order-Both Central Government and State Government 
had pow~rs to make orders. 
Constitution of India, 1950--Articles 136 and 141. 
Special Leave Peliliun- Dismissal in limine- -Such a dismissal is not 
declaration of/aw- Such a dismissal does not operate as a binding precedent- -
Doctrine of merger held inapplicable. 
In exercise of its power under sub-clause (i) of Clause 24 of the Gujarat 
Essential Articles (Licensing, Control Stock Declaration) Order, 1981 State 
of Gujarat issued an Order dated 26th July, 2000. This Order amended an 
earlier Order dated 14th August, 1998 substituting the storage limits in respect 
E 
F 
of Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils. The controversy in this case has arisen 
because on 10th November, 1997 the Central Government decided to amend G 
its Pulses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order of 1977 
whereby it deleted the items 'Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils' from the Order. 
Accordinigly a letter was addressed on 13th November, 1997 by the Directorate 
of Vanaspati, Veget11ble Oils and Fats to the Secretaries, Food and Civil 
Supplies Department of all the States for compliance with the Central H 
1099 
1100 
SUPREME COLRT REPORTS 
[2002] I S.C.R. 
A Amendment Order. Further by a Notification dated 9.6.1978, Central 
Government delegated its powers under Section 3 of the Essential 
Commodities Act, 1955 to State Government for passing orders in relation 
" 
to foodstuffs subject to prescribed conditions. 
The Appellant-Association filed a writ petition challenging the order of 
B 1981 contending that (i) the effect of deleting the words 'Edible Oilseeds and 
Edible Oils' by the Central Government from the Preamble and various 
clauses of the Central Order of 1977 was that the State Government too was 
required to delete these words from the State Order of 1981, (ii) the impugned 
order was violative of Articles 14, 19(iXg), 246, 251 and 256 of the Constitution. 
c 
Respondents contested the petition contending that (i) there was no 
connict between the Central and the State Orders, because the State 
Government had delegated its power under Section 3 read with Section 5 of 
the Essential Commodities Act read with the Orders of the Government of 
India made on 3.11.1974 and 9.6.1978; (ii) it was empowered to pass the 
D impugned Order under clause 24(1) of the State Order of 1981 as these 
-
measures were required to be taken for controlling the regular supply and 
prices of the essential commodities; and (iii) The State of l 981 was issued after 
prior concurrence of the Central Government. 
Union of India supported the action of the State Government in its 
E entirety. It was stated that by its letter dated 19th June, 1998 State of Gujarat 
brought to the notice of Government of India, the unabated rise in prices of 
edible oil and rt'quested to reintroduce stock control at the t'arliest. 
Government of India by its letter dated 27th July, 1998 responded stating 
that powers under sub-section (1) of Section 3 had already been delegated to 
~ the State Government. Accordingly, the State Government was advised that, 
if it found appropriate, it could regulate the storage, distribution etc. of• Edible 
Oilseeds and Edible Oils'. 
A single judge of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition holding that 
the provisions of State Order of 1981 could not operate because the powers 
G delegated earlier stood withdrawn in view of the amendment in the Central 
Order of 1977. Against this judgment State of Gujarat preferred appeals 
which were allowed by the Division Bench. 
,. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the Appellant- · 
Association that a similar action of the Government of Andhra Pradesh 
H relating to similar provision was struck down by High Court of Andhr

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