LexTHE ISHWARI KHETAN SUGAR MILLS (P.) LTD. & ANOTHER ETC versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. ETC .
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,, f • • THE ISHWARI KHETAN SUGAR MILLS (P.) LTD. & ANOTHER ETC. v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. ETC . April 2, 1980 331 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER, S, MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, D. A. DESAI, 8 R. S. PA<HAK AND A. D. KOSHAL, JJ;] U,P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act 1971. States kgislatur;, if comp•· ient to enact a law on declared industry. •. Constitution of India Entry 51 List I, Entry 14, List II and Entry 42 of • ~ill~~ c By the U,P, Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Ordinanre, 1971 (which later be<:ame an Act) twelve sngar undertakings stood transferred and veslfd in a Government undertaking named the U.P. State' SUgar Corporation Limited. Tho appellants' writ petitions before ther High Court impugning the constitutional validity of the Act were dismissed. In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants thal since sugar is a declared industry under the Industries (Development and Regnlation) Act, 1951 in view of entry 52 in Union List read with entry 24 in ·state list further read with Art. 246. Parliament alone is. competent to pass the law on the subject and not the State Legislature and, therefore, the impugned legislation is void. Dismissing the appeals, HELD : Industry being a matier enumerated in entry 24 of List JI. only the State legislature has the excIUSive power to legislate in respect of it, but .thisr power is subject to the provisions of entries 7 and 52 o;f List I. While under entry 7, if a declaration is made by Parliament that a particular industry is necessary for defence or for the prosecution of war, Parliament, to the exclusion of the State legislature, would be entitled to legislate in respect of that industry, a declaration by Parliament by law to assume control over any parti- cular industry in public interest in a sine qua non to clothe Parliament with power under entry 52, List I to legislate in respect of that industry. The declaration t;ontemplated by this entry is , a declaration by law. A merei declaration un- accompanied by law is ineompalible with entry 52 of List l But that doe. not mean that once a declaration is made in respect of anl industry that industry as a whole is taken out of entry 24, List IL [337 F-H; 338 D, F; 339 E] Baiinath Kedia v. State of Bihm~ & Ors. [1970] 2 ~ 100 at 113 and State of Haryana & Anr. v, Chanan Mal, etc, [1976] 3 SCR 688 at 700 referred to. The control under section 2 of the 1951 Act was assumed for a specific E F G and avowed object namely' development and regulation of certain industri<s. B . TbJs control has to be exercised in the manner provided under the statuk:. "Therefore, Parliament, has made a declaration for assuming control in respect 332 SUPREME COURT REPCTRTS [1980] 3 S.C.R.- A of tho declared industries set out in the schedule of the Act only to the extont· provided in tho Act. A conspectUs of tho provisions of tho impugned Act shows that in pith an~· substance it is one for acquisition of scheduled undertakings and such acquisition· by transfer Of ownership of those undertakings to the Corporation would in n~· way come in conftict with any of tho provisions of the Central Act of 19 5 I. B Tho Central Act is primarily concerned with development and regulation of declared indnstries and is not concerned with ownership of industrial undertakings- in declared industries, except to the extC.Ut of control over management of. tho undertaking by tho owner. By the acquisition under the impugned Act ruuf vesting of the undertakings in the Corporation they would still be' under the· c<>ntrol of tho Central Government because the Corporation wonld be amenable co the authority and jurisdiction of the Central Government. Therefore, the.:a C i• no conJlict between the impugned legislation and the control exercised hy the Central Government under the provisions of the Central Act. [340 H-341 A;. 344 C-G, 345 DJ D G B There is no force in the argument that thlj power of acquisition under Entry 42, List ill is incidental to tho power to legilJlate in respect of various topic; in the lists and, therefore, when the Union assumed control over the· declared industry such control comprehends the power to acquire and henco the power of tho State Legislature to enact legislation for acquisition of property of scheduled undertakings would be denuded. By the Constitution (Seventh· Amemmeni) Act, Entzy 33 in List I and Entry 36 in List II were deleted
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.