Judgment

K. RAMASWAMY, J.:- These two appeals, on certificate under Article 136 of the Constitution, are by two sugar factories situated in Northern part of Mysore now Karnataka State. The appellants filed writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Mysore at Bangalore assailing the constitutional validity of Section 3(3C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short the Act) and the Notification dated March 24, 1966. It was prayed inter alia that a writ or order in the nature of Mandamus be issued directing the respondents to include the petitioners factory in Zone No. 2 and to fix the price at Rs. 161/- per quintal for the sugar manufactured by the petitioners factory.

2. The Writ Petitions were dismissed by the High Court and the appellants in these circumstances have approached this Court challenging the Judgment of the High Court. The material contentions raised by the appellants in the affidavit and adumbrated in the grounds of appeal in this Court are that the appellants factories are part of the entire State of Mysore (now Karnataka) as was notified preceding the impugned notification. The factors like price of sugarcane, taxes, duties, sugar recovery percentage, labour charges, cost of production or fair return to the produce are same or similar in the entire State but due to the impugned notification by including in Zone No. 1 the appellants are put to huge losses.

3. The country was divided into five zones. Zone No. 1 consists of all the factories in Maharashtra, Gujarat, North Mysore, North Andhra Pradesh; Zone No. 2 consists of all the factories in Orissa, rest of Andhra Pradesh, South Mysore (rest of Mysore), Madras, Pondicherry and Kerala. On account thereof the appellants are stated to be subjected to heavy losses. The details have been mentioned in the affidavit and the grounds of appeal but for the purpose of disposal of the point involved in the appeals, it is not necessary to adumbrate all the material particulars in that regard. The contention that S.3(3C) of the Act is ultra vires of their fundamental rights enshrined under Art. 19(l)(g) and right to property under Art. 19(l)(t) as was available in the year 1968 (but since deleted under Constitution 44th Amendment Act) is no longer available. The Act received the protective umbrella of Art. 3 IC of the Constitution read with 9th Schedule as it has been included therein as item No. 126. It is, thereby, immuned from attack on that score. Moreover it is covered by a recent Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in M/s. Shri Sitaram Sugar Company v. Union of India, (1990) 3 SCC 2

20. Therefore, the point is no longer res integra. Section 3(3C) is constitutionally valid and unassailable.

4. The next contention raised in the High Court as well as reiterated before us is that the appellants are entitled to a notice and hearing before placing them in Zone No. 1. Clubbing with other factories in the State of Maharashtra etc. is uneconomical and kept the appellants under constant loss. Therefore, it is violative of the principles of natural justice. To appreciate the contention it is necessary to look into the notification issued. The Government of India, in exercise of the power under Sec. 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 appointed "Sugar Inquiry Commission" by Notification No. S.O. 2670 dated August 3, 1964 which consists of Dr. S. R. Sen, the Advisor and Addl. Secretary to Government of India, Planning Commission as Chairman and four other economic experts as members of the Commission-to inquire into (a) the determination of the prices and the system, of distribution of sugar and (b) the policy regarding licensing of new sugar factories or the expansion of existing sugar factories. They made a detailed inquiry, after examining the persons connected with industries including many a owner of the sugar factories or representatives of the Associations of the sugar factories and co-operative Sugar Factories Associations etc. In pa