Back
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN AND M.P. THAKKAR, JJ.*
Civil Appeals Nos. 1568-76, 1609-12, 1956, 1672, 1675-80, 1707 and 1616, 1644, 1645, 1646, 1671, 1673 and 1708 of 1974, D/- 9-1-1984.
M/s. Ram Chandra Mawa Lal, Varanasi and others, etc. etc., Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and others, etc., Respondents.
AND
M/s. Om Prakash Raj Kumar, Bilshinda and another, etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and others, Respondents.
Defence of India Rules, 1971 - Rule 114 - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – Section 3, 2(1)(a)(xi), 3(2)(c), 6, 1(2), 1(3), 5(b) - Defence of India Act, 1971 - Section 3, 37, 1(3), 3(2) – Constitution Of India, 1950 - Article 14, 32, 226, 227 - Fertilizer - Sale Of Fertilizer - Refund Of Excess Price - Government in exercise of power conferred by Rule 114 of Defence of India Rules, 1971, directing that no registered dealer of fertilizer shall charge or retain, enter into or enforce any contract for charging, in respect of any fertilizer sold to any person from any stock a price exceeding maximum price fixed by Central Government for sale of fertilizer - District Authorities not to enforce order for refund of excess price realized on sale of fertilizer from stocks which were in existence - Whether fertilizer can be brought within words "any article" mentioned in Rule 114(2) of Defence of India Rules - Whether State Government has power to fix price of fertilizer under Defence of India Rules - Whether an Act of Parliament prevails against a law of State - Whether there is any inconsistency between Central notification on one hand and State notification on other - Whether inconsistency is an irreconcilable or intolerable one – Held, In present case also an endeavour must be made to place a harmonious interpretation which would avoid a collision between two - Another way of looking at problem is this impugned notification, though issued by State, has its source of power in D.I.R. which is a Central Statute enacted by Parliament - State is merely an instrumentality for executing purpose of Central Act - Impugned notification which is later in point of time must, therefore, prevail to extent it speaks on refinement or, nuance of matter on which nuance earlier, notification is silent - Argument was advanced on assumption that State Government had permitted governmental agencies falling within definition of dealer in Fertilizer Control Order, 1957, to sell stocks held by said agencies immediately preceding issuance of impugned notification at higher rates - This allegation has been controverted by State - In any view of matter, therefore, challenge from, this platform cannot succeed - Central notification is not violated if dealers sell fertilizers from out of existing stocks acquired at lower rates, for both notifications fix maximum selling price and maximum selling price fixed under State notification is not higher than that fixed under Central notification - What is more, State notification promotes and serves object and purpose of both Centre and State - Promotes and serves in - sense, that manifest object of fixing maximum ceiling price is to make available to cultivators who grow food for Nation to obtain inputs at reasonable prices and to protect them from exploitation so that food production is not retarded - It is not contended even by petitioners, for very good reason that it is incapable of being so contended, that object of price regulation is to enable dealers to make unconscionable profit - Thus impugned State notification promotes rather than defeats, life-aim of Central as also State notifications - It helps rather than hurts objectives and goals of Centre, and there is no conflict whatsoever of interest, purpose, or perspective – Appeal Dismissed.
Judgement
VARADARAJAN, J. (Minority view) :- Civil Appeal 1656 of 1974 is by special leave. The other appeals are by certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court. All the appeals arise out of the judgment of a Division Bench of that High Court in a batch of Writ Petitions out of which W.P. No. 3421 of 1974 was treated as the leading case. Civil Appeals 1568-1576 of 1974 and batch have arisen out of that batch of Writ Petitions. In the other set of Civil Appeals another Writ Petition of 1974 is said to have been treated as the leading case by the High Court. The decisions were rendered in Writ Petition No. 3421 of 1974 for one batch and in another Writ Petition of 1974 for the. other batch. But in all the appeals before us, the judgment in W. P. No. 3421 of 1974 alone was referred to.
2. The Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged the validity of a notification dated 14-6-1974, issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of the power conferred by Rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971, directing that no registered dealer of fertilizer shall charge or retain, enter into or enforce any contract for charging, in respect of any fertilizer sold to any person on or after 1-6-1974, from any stock held on 31-5-1974, a price exceeding the maximum price fixed by the Central Government for the sale of fertilizer under an earlier notification dated 11-10-1973 issued under Clause 3 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 made in exercise of the power conferred by S. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as it prevailed on 31-5-1974. The Writ Petitions challenged also an order dated 18-6-1914 passed by the District Agricultural Officers directing registered dealers of fertilizers to refund the excess price charged on the sale of fertilizer effected on or after 1-6-1974 from out of the stock which was inexistence on 31-5-1974. The Writ Petitions sought the quashing of the said notification dated 14-6-1974 and also a direction to the District Agricultural Officers and other District Authorities not to ask the dealers to refund the excess in respect of sales completed prior to the date of that notification. The High Court has, while upholding the validity of the notification dated 14-6-1974 and dismissing the prayer for quashing the same, directed the District Agricultural Officers and other District Authorities not to enforce the order for refund of the excess price realized on the sale of fertilizer up to 14-6-1974 from the stocks which were in existence on 31-5-1974. This part of the High Courts order has become final and has not been challenged by the State Government. This Court has directed by orders dated 2-9-1974 and 30-10-1974 that the excess price charged on the sale of fertilizer which was in the possession of the appellants before 1-6-1974 should be deposited with the District Magistrate concerned within a fortnight of the sales, to remain in a separate account.
3. The fertilizer in question is admittedly a commodity controlled under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 issued by the Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by S. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The maximum price for sale of fertilizers by registered dealers to consumers is fixed under Clause 3 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 by notifications issued from time to time. The sale price of one of the varieties of fertilizer with which we are concerned in these appeals has been fixed at Rs. 1050/- per ton by a notification dated 11-10-1973 which was in force on 31-5-1974. The price fixed in that notification for the sale of that variety of fertilizer to registered dealers was Rs. 1005/- per ton leaving a margin of Rs. 45/- per ton on sale to consumers at Rs. 1050/- per ton. The Central Government, in supersession of the notification dated 11-10-1973 fixed the maximum sale price of that variety of fertilizer at Rs. 2000/- per ton by a notification dated 1-6-1974, thus giving an increase of Rs.
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
