LexSH. VIJAY KUMAR AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SH. VIJA Y KUMAR AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA ORS. APRIL 29, 1998 B [M.M. PUNCHHI, CJI., K.T. THOMAS AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] Essential Commodities Act, 1955 : Section 2(a)(xi) Notification dated 28.2. 1983-Seeds specified therein-Declaration as C essential commodity-Validity of Notification. Seeds (Control) Order, 1983-Va/idity of Constitution of India, 1950: Article 32. D Writ-Maintainability-Notification issued under Essential Commodities Act-Validity upheld by this Court earlier-Writ challenging the Notification Held as the question has already been decided nothing survives in the present writ petition. In exercise of its power under Section 2(a)(xi) of the Essential E Commodities Act, 1955 the Central Government issued a Notification dated 28.2.1983 declaring the seeds specified therein as essential commodities. In cases initiated by associations of farmers, seed growers and merchants, a Division Bench of this Court upheld the validity of the Notification and the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983. The petitioners who were probably waiting for F G over ten years for the result in these cases filed the present petition challenging the validity of the Notification and the order on the ground that they were unconstitutional, ultra vires and illegal. They also sought a declaration that Entry 33 of List Ill to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India does not empower either the Union Legislature or the State Legislature to make laws in respect of "seeds". Relying upon a judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court** it was contended that the seeds dealt with by them were not edible and as such they were not foodstuffs in any sense of the term as contemplated by Entry 33 of List III. H Dismissing the writ petition, this Court 94 VJJA Y KUMAR v. U.0.1. [SRINIVASAN, J.] 95 HELD : 1. The contention that the ruling of the Division Bench in A Reghu Seeds & Farms Case* runs counter to the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Firm Girdhar Mal Kapur Chand case is not maintainable. There is no circumstance whatever warranting the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by this Court in a matter which has already been decided in batch of cases. The petitioners have not made out a B case for reconsidering the question which has been decided by this Court in Raghu Seeds & Farms case*. Consequently nothing survives in this writ petition and it has to fail. (98-B-C) *Raghu Seeds & Farms & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1994] l SCC 278, affirmed. C **Firm Girdhar Kapur Chandv. Firm Dev Raj Madan Gopa/, (1964] 1 SCR 1995, distinguished. CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 434 of 1994. D (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) Soli J. Sorabjee, Gopal Jain and K.J. John for the Petitioners. V.C. Mahajan, Sr. Ms. Binu Tamta and D.S Mehra for the Respondent E No. I. Jasbir Malik for Prem Malhotra for the Respondent No. 4. R.S. Sodhi for the Respondent No. 5. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SRINIV ASNAN, J. By the first two prayers in this pet1t10n, the petitioners are challenging the validity of Notification dated 28.2.83 issued by the Central Government under Section 2 (a)(xi) of the Essential Commodities F Act 1955 declaring seeds specified therein as essential commodities for the G purpose of the said Act and the Seeds (Control) Order 1983 issued by the Central Government under Section 3 of the said Act on the ground that they are unconstitutional, ultra vires and illegal. There is a third prayer for declaring that Entry 33 of the List III to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India does not empower either the Union Legislature or the State Legislature or make laws in respect of "seeds". In fact, the third prayer is the crux of the H 96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R. A argument of the petitioner. 2. The very same prayers and the contentions were raised by some persons in writ petitions filed in this court in 1984 and in some High Courts. The cases filed in the High Courts were transferred to his Court and heard along with the writ petitions filed in this Court. By judgment dated 28.10.93, B a Bench of Two Judges upheld the validity of the Notification and the order and dismissed the petitions and transferred cases, vide Raghu Seeds & Farms & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1994] l S.C. 278. The petitioners who were probably waiting for over ten years for the re
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.