LexTHE UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS versus MESSRS. BHAN MAL GULZARI MAL AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
... .. .... S.d.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS service, as the State Government renewed the licence 1959 for 1953-54. In this state of record we must hold that the respondents failed to prove that the petitioner D t1t••a: Ltd · was guilty of repeated failure to comply with the pro- eve 0 ;.en • visions of the Act. On the basis of the said finding, The State of the respondents would have no power to take action Biha• under s. 25(l)(c) of the Act. The foregoing discussion establishes that neither Subba Rao f. the necessary condition to enable the Government to take action under s. 25(1)(c) of the Act has been estab, lished nor the State Government had afforded reason• able opportunity to t}J.e petitioner within phe meaning of the second proviso to s. 25(1), . · In the result we accept the petition and issue a writ of certiorari against the respondents quashing the order of the Government of Bihar dated September 1, 1955, cancelling miner's licence No. 261-H of 195~ granted in favour of the petitioner. The respondents will pay the costs to the petitioner. Petition allowed,. THE UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS v. MESSRS. BHAN A MAL GULZARI MAL AND OTHERS (B. P. SINHA, C.J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SuBBA RAo, K. C. DAs GuPTA AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.) . Iron and Steel Control-Notification issued by.Controller fixing maximum price of steel-Constitutional validity~Iron and Steel (Control of Production and Distribution) Order, r94r, cl. IIB- Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, r946 (XXIV of r946), ss. 3, 4-Constitution of India, Arts. I9(I)(f) and (g). The respondent company was registered a stock-holder under the Iron and Steel (Control of Production and Distribution) Order, r94r, issued by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under r. 81(2).of the Defence of India Rules. On Decem- ber ro, 1949, the Iron and Steel Controller issued a notification under cl. nB of the Order decreasing the prices already fixed for all categories of steel by . Rs. 30 per hm: . Criminal .cases were started against the. company' its three directors; its . general ' 1959 December x6. 628 SUPREME COURT REPOR'.rS [1960 (2)] I959 manager and two sales-men under cl. nB, read with s. 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, on the allega- · The Union of India tion that they had sold their old stock of steel for prices higher v. than those prescribed by the said notification. The respondents Bhan• Mal moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for Gulzari Mal quashing the said criminal proceedings. Their contention was that cl. nB of the Order was invalid and unconstitutional as it violated Arts. l9(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution. It was also urged that the said clause was ultra vires the powers conferred on the Central Government by s. 3 of the Act, under which the order must now be deemed to have been issued. The High Court held that the cl. nB violated Arts. l9(1)(f) and (g) of-the Consti- tution. The Union of India appealed. _ Held, that neither cl. nB of the Iron and Steel (Control of Production and Distribution) Order, 1941, nor the impugned notification-violated -Art. 19(1)(!) and (g) of the Constitution and their validity was beyond question. The clear implication of the constitutional validity of ss. 3 and 4 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary powers) Act, 1946, as found by this Court in Harishankar Bagla v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [1955] l S.C.R. 380, is that if the Central Government, instead of exercising its own authority under s. 3 of the Act, chooses by a notified order to authorise the Controller to pass appropriate orders, the notified order cannot be challenged on the ground that it suffers from the vice of excessive delegation. All that the Iron and Steel (Control of Production and Distribution) Order, l94r, seeks to do is to prescribe an integrated scheme for the guidance of the Controller and other specified authorities in effectuating the policy laid down by s. 3 of the Act and it is obvious that cl. nB of the Order by authorising the fixation of the maximum price for the different categories of iron and steel directly carries out that legislative object, namely, equitable distribution of the goods at lair prices. The power conferred on the Central Government by s. 3 and on the specified authority by s. 4 of the Act is canalised by the policy clearly enunciated by s. 3, and cl. nB which seeks to further
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.