The expression 'foodstuffs' includes cooked food, allowing government regulation of its prices, while claims of arbitrariness in price fixation were rejected due to suppression of material facts by petitioners.

Judgment

DESAI. J.:- Should Art. 32 of the Constitution lend its assistance to petitioners in this group of petitions so that the poor in Andhra Pradesh can be successfully deprived of their staple simple breakfast? Even an imaginary marginal dent in the profits of the hoteliers stirs it into action by an easy resort to a writ petition under Art. 32 and an ex parte stay which itself is success even if the petition ultimately fails, because in the meantime the measure which may possibly affect their profits is kept. under suspended animation and the profit being continuously derived from scattered consumers is not refundable and the unjust enrichment is enjoyed with impunity. This case amply illustrates the point.

2. Hoteliers of Andhra Pradesh raised a hue and cry when the Government of Andhra Pradesh- the first respondent enacted and proclaimed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. 1955 (1955 Act for short) read with the notification of the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation dated June 9, 1978. the Andhra Pradesh catering Establishments (Fixation and Display of Prices of Foodstuffs) Order. 1978 (1978 Order for short) dated September 8, 1978 whereby it was made obligatory for the catering establishments to display the Prices of all foodstuffs served by the establishment. and simultaneously fixed the maximum Price of seven items of food comprising the poor mans menu in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The seven items enumerated in the Schedule appended to the 1978 Order include idli-vada, upma, sada dosa, Puree, coffee, tea a rice plate (scheduled rice duled items for short). Cl. 3 of the Order prescribed maximum prices of the scheduled items of food and cl. 4 makes it obligatory to display in English and principal language of the area the weight or measure and price of every item of foodstuff offered for sale in the establishment. There were consequential provision such as power to issue directions power, to call for information Dower of entry, search & seizure and power to grant exemption as also Dower to amend the Schedule. A clarificatory notification was issued on October 3, 1978 giving certain direction. The Schedule and the rates get out, therein were modified by the Amending order dated December 11, 1980. The amendment catered to an upward revision of the prices. It seems some further negotiations took place between the Minister of civil Supplies and Labour on the one hand and hoteliers on the other which led to a Notification dated January 5, 1981 (1981 Order for short) giving further upward revision in maximum price of scheduled items and the scheduled items were reduced from 7 to 6 deleting rice plate. Ignoring this latest order which replaced the earlier orders the Petitioners approached this Court and obtained an ex parte stay of the implementation of Orders dated September 5, 1978 and December 11, 1980. In fact. but for the intervention by the Court staying the operation of earlier orders the order dated January 5, 1981 was not staved yet effectively the petitioners succeeded in putting into cold storage the price fixation order leaving them free to charge any price unhampered and uninhibited by any governmental action.

3. Dr. L. M. Sinahvi, who led on behalf of the petitioners made two submissions which have nothing to do with the validity or legality of the impugned Orders. He submitted that the Court should give a direction to the State Government to re-examine the prices of inputs and overhead charges so as to arrive at such maximum price of the scheduled commodities as to ensure a reasonable return on the investment which would render the restriction on the fundamental right to carry on trade reasonable and satisfy Art. 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. He next submitted that there are certain directions in the 1978 and 1981 orders which are impossible of compliance and therefore the petitioners should be heard before they are compelled to implement the conditions. Nei