Back
2003 Supreme(Bom) 1029
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Shah A.P. Karnik D.G., JJ.
Federation of Association of Maharashtra others .... Petitioners.
Versus
State of Maharashtra others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 2598 of 2002 with Civil Application Nos. 2476, 2672 2673 of 2002, decided on 5-9-2003.
Advocates appeared :
Shekhar Naphade with G.S. Kulkarni with Ms. Sonali Joshi, for petitioners.
S.G. Aney with C.R. Sonawane, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
Rajiv Chavan with Suresh Kumar, for respondent No. 5.
Headnote:
MOLASSES - Maharashtra Act XXXXV of 2000 - Section 2(28) of the Bombay Prohibition Act - [Section 2(28)] - The court discussed the constitutional validity of the amendment to the definition of 'molasses' and its impact on the trade in jaggery. The key legal provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Gur (Regulation of Use) Order, 1968 were interpreted to determine the legislative competence of the State Act and the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of legislative competence, reasonableness of restrictions, and the public interest test.
Fact of the Case:
The petition challenged the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Act XXXXV of 2000, which amended the definition of 'molasses' in the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The traders contended that the amendment severely affected the lawful trade in jaggery, leading to raids and seizures by the authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, holding that the State Legislature had the legislative competence to enact the amendment and that the restrictions imposed were reasonable and in the public interest. The court also rejected the arguments based on Articles 19(1)(g) and 301 of the Constitution.
Issues: The main issues were the legislative competence of the State Act, the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed, and the impact on the traders' right to carry on trade.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of legislative competence, reasonableness of restrictions, and the public interest test. It held that the amendment fell within the regulatory power of the State Legislature and the restrictions imposed were justified in the public interest.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected. The interim relief was allowed to continue for four weeks.
2.By the impugned amendment black gur (jaggery), rotten gur (jaggery), rotten gur (jaggery) and rab etc. are brought within the definition of molasses contained in section 2(28) by inserting the following words:
"and shall also included substance containing sugars obtained from sugarcane known as black gur (jaggery), rotten gur (jaggery), rab or rotten rab, which contain irrespective of their colour.
i) total sugars (expressed or invert sugar) less than 90 percent and sucrose less than 60 percent); or
ii) extraneous matter insoluble in water more than 2 percent; or
iii) total ash more than 6 percent; or
iv) ash insoluble in Hydrochloric acid (HCL) more than 0.5 percent; or
v) more than 10 percent of moisture; or
vi) sulphur dioxide in concentration exceeding 70 parts per million."
3.The petitioners before us are the associations of traders. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the amended provision is patently illegal and unreasonable as it severely affects the lawful conduct of trade in jaggery by the members of the petitioners. As a consequence of the amendment the respondents are conducting raids on the godowns of the petitioners members and seizing their trucks/vehicles on a mere suspicion that the jaggery which is lawfully and bona fide being traded is black jaggery within the meaning of the amended definition and is meant for illicit purposes. It is contended that the gur and jaggery are popular commodities, consumed by humans and cattle and used in the preparation of sweets ayurvedic medicines as also in certain industries; and consequently the amended provision under challenge is causing serious difficulties in carrying on business not only in black jaggery but also in jaggery, which is edible. According to the petitioners a commodity like jaggery is likely to be spoiled due to long storage heat contact with moisture or water while at the time of its procurement the same was perfect in all its ingredients being meant for human consumption. However it is alleged that the respondents want to classify such jaggery as molasses when it cannot by any stretch of imagination be regarded as such so as to attract the provisions of the Bombay prohibition Act.
4.The main points raised in support of the present petition are mentioned below:
i)The Amending Act, which is a State Act seeks to legislate on gur/ jaggery in its various forms whereas this very subject matter is already legislated upon by the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 which is a central Act.
ii)The provisions of the Amending Act are unreasonable and offends Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
iii) The Amending Act has the direct and immediate effect of restricting the freedom under Article 301 of the Constitution as it directly impedes the right of intercourse throughout the territories of India.
5.We may set out in brief legislative history leading to the amendment to section 2(28). In exercise of powers under section 139-B of the Bombay prohibition Act, the then Government of Bombay had issued Order bearing G.O.R.D No. PRH. 1757/176159 dated 6-11-1958 to include gur/jaggery unfit for human consumption and therefore injurious to public health under restricted trade by providing for a licence for the possession use and sale of black jaggery. The order extended to the pre-organization State of Bombay It was repealed in 1962. The Government of India issued the Gur (Regulation of Use) Order, 1968 defining chemically the wor
