SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1966 Supreme(Pat) 92

PATNA HIGH COURT
R.L.Narasimham and K.K.Dutta JJ.
Acharaj Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Judicial No. 256 of 1966 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 19, 1966

The provisions of the Bihar Foodgrains Procurement Order, 1966 do not violate any fundamental rights or exceed the power conferred by Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules.

Headnote:

BIHAR FOODGRAINS PROCUREMENT ORDER, 1966 - Validity - Challenge - Grounds - Violation of fundamental rights - Excess of power conferred by Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules - Held - Order is valid.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a cultivator of Patna District, challenged the validity of a direction given to him (Annexure A) in pursuance of the provisions of the Bihar Foodgrains Procurement Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred to its the Order) to deliver certain quantity of paddy at the Government godown.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the order is valid and does not violate any fundamental rights or exceed the power conferred by Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules.

Issues: 1. Whether the order violates fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution? 2. Whether the order is in excess of the power conferred by Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the provisions of the order do not violate Articles 14, 19, 25, 26, and 31 of the Constitution. The Court observed that the order was made in pursuance of the Proclamation of Emergency under Article 352 (1) of the Constitution, and that the Defence of India Act, 1962, conferred power on the Central Government to make rules for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community. The Court further observed that the Defence of India Rules, 1962, were made in exercise of the power conferred by the Defence of India Act, and that Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules authorized the appropriate authority to provide, by order, for regulating the production, supply and distribution, use and consumption of articles or things for the purpose of maintenance or increase of supplies and services essential to the life of the community. 2. The Court held that the order is not in excess of the power conferred by Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules. The Court observed that Sub-rule (2) of Rule 125 conferred power on the Central Government to make rules for regulating the production, supply and distribution, use and consumption of articles or things for the purpose of maintaining or increasing the supply of, and the obtaining of information with regard to articles or things of any description whatsoever, . . .for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community. The Court further observed that Sub-rule (3) of Rule 125 specified various matters which may be provided for in the said order "without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (2)". The Court held that the provisions of the order are within the scope of the power conferred by Sub-rule (2) of Rule 125.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.

Judgment

Narasimham, J.

1. The petitioner, who is a cultivator of Patna District has challenged the validity of a direction given to him (Annexure A) in pursuance of the provisions of the Bihar Foodgrains Procurement Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred to its the Order) to deliver certain quantity of paddv at the Government godown.

2. On the 26th October 1962, the President issued the well known proclamation of Emergency under Article 352 (1) of the Constitution, and thereafter the Defence of India Act, 1962, was passed by the Parliament. Subsection (1) of Sec.3 of that Act conferred power on the Central Government to make rules for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community. In Subsection (2) of that section various matters which may be provided for in the rules were specified "without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) ". Clause (23) of Sub-section (2) referred to (omitting immaterial portion) "the control of trade or industry for the purpose of regulating or increasing the supply of, and the obtaining of information with regard to articles or things of any description whatsoever, . . .for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community."

Sub-section (2) of Sec.3 of the Act further empowered the Central Government not only to make rules for the purpose but also to provide in the rules Cor any other authority to make orders providing for various matters referred to in that sub-section. In pursuance of the power conferred by Sec.3 of the Act, the wellknown Defence of India Rules. 1962, were made, and Rule 125 deall with the matters referred to in Clause (23) of Sub-section (2) of Sec.3 of the Act. Sub-rule (2) (omitting immaterial portionst of that rule authorised the appropriate authority to provide, by order. for regulating the production, supply and distribution, use and consumption of articles or things for the purpose of maintenance or increase of supplies and services essential to the life of the community, or for securing the equitable distribution and availability of any article or thins at fair prices.

Sub-rule (3) of the same rule specified various matters which may be provided for in the said order "without prejudice to the gene rality of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (2) ". Clause (c) of Sub-rule (3) is as follows : " (c) for requiring any person holding in slock any article or thing to sell the whole or a specified part of the slock to the Government or to an officer or agent of the Government or to such other person or class or classes of persons and in such circumstances as may be specified in the order; Land if the order relates to foodgrains at such price as may be specified in the order having regard to (i) the maximum price, if any, fixed by order under Clause (a) or by or under any other law for the time being in force, for the grade or variety of foodgrains to which the order under this clause applies : and

(ii) the price for that grade or variely of foodgrains prevailing or likely to prevail during the post-harvest period in the area to which the order applies :]"

With a view to provide an additional safeguard against the unreasonable exercise of this power to make an order, Sub-rule 3 (A) which was inserted by an amendment made on the 13th May, 1965. required the prior concurrence of the Central Government before an order could be made under Sub-rules (2) and (8) of that rule so far as food stuffs, edible oil seeds, oils and certain other commodities were concerned.

3. In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 125. the Government of Bihar. with the prior concurrence of the Central Government, made the order which was published in notification No. 18038. dated the 29lh October, 1965. As the validity of the order is in question. I may briefly refer to the main provisions of the order. The primary purpose of the order was to confer power on the appropriate authority to direct even cullivator to supply at the Governm



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top