Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
18th October, 1954
M.C. MAHAJAN C.J.I., DAS, GHULAM HASAN, BHAGWATI AND JAGANNADHA DAS JJ.
Chamber of Commerce, Hapur and others, petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
Petn. No. 309 of 1953 and Civil Misc Petn. No. 483 of 1953.
Advocates appeared
Messrs. K. C. Jain and B. P. Maheshwari, Advocates, for Petitioners; Messrs, K. B. Asthma and C. P. Lal, Advocates, for Respondents.
The U.P. Food Grains (Futures and Options Prohibition) Order, 1945, was continued in force first by S. 5, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Ordinance, 1946 and then by S. 17, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, but was repealed by S. 9, U.P. Food Grains (Futures and Options Prohibition) Order, 1951. By Notification No. C.G. 603(2) -III(1) dated 5-3-1947 and Notification No. PY 603(2).VI(1), doted 15-11-1947, the earlier Notification No. 603(2)-(1) dated 21-10-1946 was amended, and these amendments withdrew the power so delegated with respect to "edible oils and oil seeds and pulses other than gram and such withdrawal was only with regard to production, supply, and distribution of those commodities but was not with regard to trade and commerce therein.
The U.P. Food-Grains (Futures and Options Prohibition) Order, 1951, made it illegal and a punishable offence for any person to enter into any futures in pulses other than gram or to pay or receive or to agree to pay or receive any margin relating to such futures. By S. 9 of that Order the Order of 1945 containing similar provisions was repealed. The present petitioners along with several other persons applied for a writ under Article 226 for the enforcement of their fundamental right under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution to carryon their business and restraining the State from enforcing the Order of 1951 in so far as it related to pulses other than gram and for a declaration that S. 2 (a) of the Order read with items 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the schedule thereto was illegal and ultra vires the State Government. This application succeeded and the State Government was directed by the Supreme Court by its judgment dated the 15th May, 1952, to abstain from giving effect to it.
On the 10th June, 1953, a letter was addressed by the Deputy Commissioner, Food, D.P., to all Regional Food Controllers and Deputy Regional Food Controllers and all District Magistrates in U.P. instructing them to regard all futures in foodgrains mentioned in the schedule to the 1945 Order including pluses other than gram as punishable. The reasoning advanced was that the D.P. Foodgrains (Futures and Option Prohibition) order, 195], having been declared ultra vires by the judgment pronounced by the Supreme Court on the 15th May, 1952, that Order became unenforceable and consequently the 1945 Order continued in force. This necessitated the petitioners to file another application for a writ under Art. 32 of the Constitution.
Held: (I) As the Order of 1945 ceased to have effect with regard to the price, production, distribution and movements of those commodities, that Order could not in any way continue to regulate or control trade or commerce in those commodities and the two Notifications of 1947 quite effectively superseded the Order of 1945 so far as it purported to regulate or control the price, production, distribution and movement of or trade and commerce in edible oils and oil seeds and pulses other than gram.
(2) The order of 1951, was not declared ultra vires and invalid in its entirety by the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 15th May, 1955. The order was declared invalid in so far as it purported to restrict the dealings in edible oils and oil seeds and pulses other than gram. The rest of the Order of 1951 and in particular S. 9 thereof by which the Order of 1945 had been withdrawn, remained unaffected by the judgment of the Supreme Court. In the circumstances ,the Order of 1945 cannot be regarded as having been revived by the judgment in respect of edible oils and oilseeds and pulses other than gram in spite of the express withdrawal of that Order by S. 9 of the Order of 1951 which otherwise remains operative.
Judgement
DAS, J.: This is a petition made under Article 32 of the Constitution by the Chamber of Commerce, Hapur and three individual persons praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the State of Uttar Pradesh and two of its officers in the Food Department to abstain from enforcing the Uttar Pradesh Food Grains (Futures and Options Prohibition) order 1945 or any orders or directions contained in the letters issued by the respondents copies whereof are annexed to the petition and marked B and D. The facts and circumstances leading up to this application may be shortly stated at the outset.
2. The Chamber of Commerce; Hapur is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act with its registered office at Hapur. There are about 200 members of this Chamber of Commerce including petitioners Nos. 2 to 4. Petitioner No. 3 is also its President and Petitioner No. 2 is also a member of its Executive Committee. The members of the Chamber carry on business in food-grains including pulses both on ready and forward basis. The Chamber acts as a clearing agent for a commission and guarantees the performance of forward contracts by its members upon payment of margin money according to the rules.
3. On or about the 1st September 1945 the U. P. Government, in exercise of powers conferred on it by R. 81(2) of the Defence of India Rules, issued Notification No. 8071/c.s. promulgating the United Provinces Food Grains (Futures and Options Prohibition) Order 1945 (hereinafter called "the 1945 Order"). Section 2(a) of that Order defined "foodgrains" as meaning any of the foodgrains mentioned in the schedule thereto, Arhar, peas, urd and moong were mentioned as items 6, 7, 8 and 9 of that schedule. Section 3 provided as follows :
"3. No person shall
(a) enter into any futures in foodgrains or pay or receive or agree to pay or receive any margin relating to any such futures;
(b) enter into any options in foodgrains".
4. The Defence of India Rules expired on the 30th September 1946 and consequently all orders made thereunder were also due to expire on the same date. On the lst October 1946. however, there came into force the Essential supplies (Temporary Powers) Ordinance 1946 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1946 Ordinance") promulgated by the Governor-General and published in the Gazette of India on the 25th September 1946. 10
Section 3 of that Ordinance conferred on the Central Government extensive powers to control production, supply, distribution of and trade and commerce in essential commodities as defined in Section 2(a) thereof. Section 4 authorised the Central Government to direct by notified order that the power to make orders under Section 3 should, in relation to such matters and subject to such conditions as might be specified in the direction, be exercisable also by such officer subordinate to it or by such Provincial Government or such officer thereof as might be specified in the direction. Section 5 of that Ordinance ran as follows :
"5. Continuance in force of existing orders : Until other provisions are made under this Ordinance, any order, whether notified or not, made by whatever authority under Rule 80-B, or sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3) of Rule 81 of the Defence of India Rules, in respect of any matter specified in Section 3, which was in force immediately before the commencement of this Ordinance shall, notwithstanding the expiration of the said rules, continue in force so far as consistent with this Ordinance and be deemed to be an order made under Section 3; and all appointments made, licenses or permits granted and directions issued under any such order and in force immediately before such commencement shall likewise continue in force and be deemed to be made, granted or issued in pursuance of this Ordinance."
The 1945 Order, therefore, continued in force until other provisions were made under the 1946 Ordinance.
5. In exercise of powers conferred on it by Section 4 of the 1946 Ordinance the Government of India, on t
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
