Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P. SEN AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.
(a) Writ Petns. Nos. 2907 - 2908, 3234, 3238-39, 3164, 3254, 3630-31, 3686, 3783, 3816, 4816, 4829-31, 4836-38, 4996-5001, 5051-54, 5089-93, 5136-46, 5247, 3160, 3634, 4494, 4616, 4967, 5362-71, 5416-20, 5447-50, 5716-17, 5840, 6015, 6587-89, 6609-14/81. (b) 5062, 5094, 5157-58, 5451,5615-17/81 (c) 5097, 5042, 5098, 5017, 5214, 6315-36 & 7003/81; (d) 3421, 3407, 3408-13, 3422, 3536, 3561-64, 5238, 3824, 5466, 5544, 6009, 6310-31, 6562-74 and 6582-83/81, (e) 4904-4905, 5080, 5094, 5239-45, 5358-59, 5395, 5484-88, 5489-92, 5734-39, 6584-86 and 6817-21/81, (f) 4960-62, 4958-59, 5129-33, 5219-20, 5331-33, 5518-19, 5526, 5428-31 and 5527/81, (g) 4526, 4926, 4995, 5046, 5048-50, 5100-5101, 5136-46, 5402-11, 5436-38, 5560, 5520-21, 5562, 5558, 5556, 5559, 5550, 5546-47, 5552, 5555, 5553-54, 5511, 5551, 5482, 5618-19, 5809-20, 6132-33, 5512-20, (6132-33,) 6244, 6273-75, 6267-72, 5512-14, 5515, 6570, 5562, 7072-29 and 7032-34/81, (h) 5568-69, 5221, 5380-83, 5129-33, 5421-22, 5440, 5507-10, 5806-7, 6245, 6246, 6265, 6398 & 6684/81, (i) 3592, 3353, 5396, 6016, 6247-48, 6616, 6668 and 6798/81, (j) 5003, 4453, 4455-56, 5346-48, 4955, 5082-89, 5577-80, 5581 and 5224/81, (k)3489 and 4263/81, (l) 4818/81, (m) 2916, 2932, 3242, 3297-3302, 3334-43, 3475, 4098-4100, 4136, 4304, 4187, 4777, 5007-17, 2027-34, 5352-55, 5473-79, 5604-5608, 5740-42, 5743-44, 5821, 6012-12 and 5583-92/81, (n) 5391 and 5525/81, (o) 5443/81, (p) 5444, 5663 and 6266/81, (q)5464/81, (r) 5451 and 5564-66/81, (s) 5808/81, (t) 5571-75, 5622-29 and 6014/81, (u) 5718-19 and 6943/81, (v) 5568-69/81.
B.: (a) 2932, 3776-80, 4140-45, 4326-28, 4876-4902, 4670-78 and 5473-79/81, (b) 5480/81, (c) 4955-56, 5330, 5392, 3823 and 6278/81, (d) 5529-30/81, (e) 5531-32/81, (f) 5841-50/81 and (g) 5656-58 of 1981, D/-5-11-1981.
Foodgrains Matters
A. Movement By Road:
(a) M/s. Bishamber Dayal Chandra Mohan etc. etc., Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others etc. etc., Respondents.
(b) Jagdish Prasad Agarwal etc. etc., Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
(c) Haryana Dall Industries etc., Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
(d) M/s. Kalyan Mal Deep Chand etc., Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
(e) Aggarwal Trading Co. etc. etc., Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
(f) M/s. Attar Singh Santosh Kumar, Petitioners
Versus
Secretary, Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies and others, Respondents.
(g) M/s. J.B. Flour Mills etc. etc., Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
(h) M/s. Anupchand Shyamlal etc. etc., Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
(i) M/s. Kaly Ram Govind Narain and others etc. etc., Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
(j) M/s. Radhye Shyam Mukesh Kumar and others, etc. etc. Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
(k) M/s. Ramji Lal Ram Karan and others, Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
(l) Namuna Parshad Shobit Kumar, Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
(m) M/s. Har Kishan Dass Shiv Lal etc. etc., Petitioners
Versus
State of M.P. and others, etc. etc., Respondents.
(n) M/s. Jatta Mal Rati Ram etc., Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
(o) Durga Prasad Rungta and Bros. and others, Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
(p) Balaji Trading Co. etc. etc., Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
(q) Mangey Lal Aggarwal etc., Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
(r) M/s. Mangal Sen Ram Gopal Sikandra Rao etc. etc., Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
(s) M/s. Adarsh Vyapar Mandal, Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
(t) Gujarat Trading Co. and others etc. Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
(u) M/s. Darshan Lal Santosh Kumar and others etc., Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
(v) M/s. Siya Ram Girish Chandra and another, Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
B. Restriction On Quantum Of Foodgrains which Can Be Held :-
(a) M/s. Ashvani Kumar Mahesh Kumar Malani etc. etc., Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and another, Respondents. 34
(b) Jagan Nath Shri Bhagwan and others, Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
(c) M/s. Phudan Lal Pyare Lal and others, etc. etc., Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
(d) M/s. Jai Kishan Vinod Kumar etc. etc., Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
(e) M/s. Aggarwal Trading Co. etc. etc., Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
(f) M/s. Keshri Chand Udai Chand and others, Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
(g) M/s. Mansa Ram Puran Mal and others, Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others, Respondents.
Advocates appeared
M/s. Hari Sarup, M.N. Phadke, Soli J. Sorabjee, J.P. Goyal and Mr. C.M. Lodha, Sr. Advocates (M/s. B. Dutta, R. A. Gupta, Miss Kamini Jaiswal, Rajiv Dutta, Manoj Swarup and Miss Lalita Kohli, M/s. R.S. Sharma, R.K. Jain, Pankaj Jain, P. K. Jain, K. K. Jain, K.B. Rohatgi, B. R. Kapur, B.S. Tawakley, S.R. Srivastava, N.N. Sharma, A. K. Goel, M/s. Mitter & Mitters & Co., S. K. Jain, Rajesh Jain, Mukul Mudgal, M. Qamaruddin, Mrs. M. Qamaruddin, M/s. Anis Suhrawardy, A.P. Mohanty, K. K. Gupta, Ravi Prakash Gupta, C. K. Ratnaparkhi, S.c. Birla, M.C. Dhingra and S.K. Gambhir, Advocates with them), for Petitioners; M/s. G. N. Dikshit & O.P. Rana, Sr. Advocates (Mrs. Shoba Dixit, R.N. Poddar, G. Gopalakrishnan, Mr. A.V. Rangam, B. D. Sharma, D. P. Mohanty and Mr. A. Shroff, Advocates with them), for Respondents.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 32, 162 and 301 - Scope and extent of executive power of State - Dealers of foodgrains - Regulation and control of trade and commerce in foodstuffs - It necessarily involves a claim by petitioners who are wholesale dealers of foodgrains that exercise of such governmental power conflicts with the rule of law and is in flagrant violation of the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse guaranteed under Art. 301 of Constitution and fundamental right to carry on trade and business guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution - These petitions fall into two distinct and separate categories, one by wholesale dealers of foodgrains from Union Territory of Delhi and the neighbouring States of Punjab and Haryana, and other by wholesale dealers of foodgrains from State of Uttar Pradesh - Held, As already stated instructions conveyed by State Government by impugned teleprinter message imposing requirement for making of an endorsement by the Deputy Marketing Officer or the Senior Marketing Officer or the physical verification of stocks of wheat during the course of transit, are not a restriction on fundamental right to carry on trade or business guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) or on the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse under Art. 301 - These are nothing but regulatory measures to ensure that excess stock of wheat held by a wholesale dealer, commission agent or a retailer is not transported to a place outside State or from one district to another - State Government in its return has stated that there is no ban on export of wheat from State of Uttar Pradesh to various other States or from one district to another within State, subject to making of an endorsement by Deputy Marketing Officer or Senior Marketing Officer concerned - Petitioners who are wholesale dealers of foodgrains in State of Uttar Pradesh are, therefore, free to carry on their business within permissible limits, i.e., they may carry on their trade or business or enter into inter-State or intra-State transactions of wheat subject to stock limit of 250, quintals, at a time - Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT
A. P. SEN, J.:— The issue in this and the connected 505 petitions under Art, 32 of the Constitution is of far-reaching significance. It raises questions of the highest importance as to the scope and extent of the executive power of the State under Art. 162 of the Constitution, in relation to regulation and control of trade and commerce in foodstuffs. It necessarily involves a claim by the petitioners who are wholesale dealers of foodgrains that the exercise of such governmental power conflicts with the rule of law and is in flagrant violation of the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse guaranteed under Art. 301 of the Constitution and the fundamental right to carry on trade and business guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. These petitions fall into two distinct and separate categories, one by the wholesale dealers of foodgrains from the Union Territory of Delhi and the neighbouring States of Punjab and Haryana, and the other by the wholesale dealers of foodgrains from the State of Uttar Pradesh.
2. The short question that falls for consideration in some of the writ petitions by wholesale dealers of foodgrains from the Union Territory of Delhi and the State of Punjab and Haryana is whether the action. of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh in setting up check-posts on its borders and the stoppage and seizure of wheat in transit through the State of Uttar Pradesh during the course of inter-State trade and commerce to various destinations in the States of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra at the check-post at Saiyan on the border between the States of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh on the strength of its instructions conveyed by its teleprinter message dated March 31, 1981, was in violation of Art. 301 of the Constitution.
3. In a majority of the writ petitions by wholesale dealers from the State of Uttar Pradesh, two questions arise, (1) whether Notification No. P-XXIX-Food-5-5(42)/80 dated April 21, 1981, issued by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh, in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 3 read with S. 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by which cl. 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Foodgrains (Procurement and Regulation of Trade) Order, 1978, has been amended, providing that no wholesale dealer, commission agent or a retailer shall have in stock wheat more than 250 quintals, 250 quintals and 20 quintals respectively, at any time, infringes the fundamental right to carry on trade or business guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g); and (2) whether the. governmental instructions conveyed by its teleprinter message dated March 31, 1981, placing restrictions on movement of wheat by traders on private account from the State of Uttar Pradesh to various other States and on inter-district movement of wheat within the State, were in breach of the fundamental right under Art. 19 (1) (g) read with Art. 301 of the Constitution.
4. The following are the facts and circumstances so far as necessary to show as to how the legal questions are presented. It would be convenient first to deal with the writ petitions filed by the wholesale dealers of foodgrains from the Union Territory of Delhi and the States of Punjab and Haryana seeking a declaration that the impugned action of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh in setting up check-posts on the borders of the State and directing seizure of wheat in transit through the State, on the strength of the impugned teleprinter message, conflicted with the guarantees of inter-State trade and commerce dealt with by Art. 301 of the Constitution.
5. Facts in all these cases are more or less similar. The petitioners who are wholesale dealers of foodgrains from the Union Territory of Delhi and the States of Punjab and Haryana allege that between April 29-30, 1981, they, acting as commission agents, purchased wheat from the open market in Delhi and elsewhere and despatched the same by trucks to various destinations in the State of Maharashtra an
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
