SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1961 Supreme(SC) 331

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
29th September,1961
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., S.K. DAS, A.K. SARKAR, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Mannalal Jain, Petitioner
Versus
State of Assam and others, Respondents.
Petition No. 303 of 1960.
Advocates appeared
Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India (M/s. N. Sharma, S. C. Nath and R. Gopala Krishnan, Advocates, with him), for Petitioner; Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India (Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, with him), for Respondents.

Advocates:
C.K.DAFTARY, M.C.SETALVAD, N.SHARMA, NAUNIT LAL, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN, S.C.NATH

Headnote:EXECUTIVE ORDER OR INSTRUCTION WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW

       

Judgment

S. K. DAS, J. (For himself ; Sinha C.J.I. and N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.) : This writ petition by one Mannalal Jain was originally filed on October 17, 1960, and the order complained of was dated September 13, 1960. This was an order made by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Gauhati, rejecting an application made by the petitioner for the grant of a license for the year 1960 for dealing in rice and paddy under the relevant provisions of the Assam Foodgrains (Licensing and Control) Order, 1960. This writ petition was put up for hearing in this Court on February 2, 1961 The hearing was, however, adjourned sine die, because it was stated before us that the period of license for 1960 had already expired and a fresh application would have to made for a license for 1961. A fresh application was accordingly made by the petitioner on February 4, 1961. But before that date a fresh Assam Foodgrains (Licensing and Control) Order, 1961, was made by the Governor of Assam and the application made by the petitioner had to be dealt with under the new Order. No order having been made on this fresh application by the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner moved this Court by means of a petition (C. M. P. No. 850 of 1961) asking for certain reliefs, one of which was that the respondents, namely, the licensing authorities should be directed to consider the application of the petitioner and grant him a license. On April 11, 1961, an order was made rejecting the application of the petitioner. This order which is impugned before us was in these terms :

"Having regard to the existing licenses in these areas (Mangaldai and Gauhati), and the quantity of foodgrains available therein, any further license would be superfluous".

When the petition was again put up for hearing on May 1, 1961, the petitioner asked for time to amend his original petition which related to the order refusing to grant him a license for 1960. This amendment became necessary by reason of the subsequent order passed on April 11, 1961, quoted earlier, by which the petitioner s application for a license for 1961 was rejected. This amendment was allowed. Therefore, we have now to deal with the writ petition as amended by the petition dated May 5, 1961 (C. M.P. No. 1140 of 1961).

2. It is necessary now to state the relevant facts out of which the petition has arisen. The petitioner states that he is an Indian citizen carrying on a business dealing in rice and paddy in the district of Kamrup in the State of Assam. In 1955 was enacted the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Act 10 of 1955). In exercise of the powers conferred by S. 3, of the said Act, read with a notification by which the said powers were delegated by the Central Government to the Government of Assam, the latter Government made an Order called the Assam Foodgrains (Licensing and Control) Order, 1958. The result of this was that no dealing in rice and paddy in wholesale quantities was permissible unless the petitioner obtained a license from the relevant licensing authority. The petitioner states that he obtained such a license in 1958. This license expired on December 31, 1958. The case of the petitioner is that in 1959 also he carried on his business though there is some dispute as to whether he obtained a license for that year. On November 26, 1959, the petitioner received a letter from the office of the Deputy Director of Supply, Gauhati, which said that his license would not be renewed after December 31, 1959. This communication, it is stated, was the result of a decision taken by the Government of Assam on the advice of a body called the Food Advisory Council to give a right of monopoly procurement of paddy to a co-operative society in the district of Kamrup known as the Assam Co-operative Apex Marketing Society Ltd. (respondent No. 6 before us). In a letter dated November 13, 1959, the Director of Supply, Assam, indicated the policy to be followed to give effect to the decision aforesaid in these terms :

"The right of






















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top