High Court Of Calcutta
M. M. Dutt, Monoj Kumar Mukherjee
UNION OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
HINDUSTAN ALUMINIUM CORPORATION LIMITED - Respondent
F. M. A. T. 641 Of 1981
Decided On : 12/23/1982
The court examined the legality of the impugned orders passed by the Central Government under the Aluminium Control Order, 1970, which fixed the sale price and retention prices of indigenous aluminum sold as ingots, billets, wire bars and wire rods. The court also considered the validity of Clauses 4a and 4b of the Control Order.
Issues: 1. Whether Clauses 4a and 4b of the Aluminium Control Order, 1970, were ultra vires Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and were ultra vires the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the impugned orders were discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India? 3. Whether the impugned orders were passed in violation of the rules of natural justice and whether HINDALCO had been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard? 4. Whether the impugned orders were void under Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as HINDALCO was discriminated vis-a-vis BALCO without any reasonable justification therefor? 5. Whether the impugned orders were void under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India? 6. Whether the impugned orders were void under Article 265 of the Constitution of India? 7. Whether the impugned orders were void under Article 300a of the Constitution of India?
( 1 ) IN this appeal, the appellants, namely, the Union of India, the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Steel, Mines and Coal (Department of Mines) and the Controller of Aluminium have challenged the propriety of the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court whereby the learned Judge made absolute the Rule Nisi issued on the application of Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Limited, hereinafter referred to as HINDALCO, and one of its share-holders, under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the writ application, the respondent HINDALCO challenged the propriety and legality of five orders of the Central Government, all dated Oct. 4. 1979 under the Aluminium Control Order, 1970 passed under Section 3 ef the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The legality and constitutional validity of the provisions of Clauses 4a and 4b of the Aluminium Control Order were also challenged in the writ application.
( 2 ) AT all material times HINDALCO carried and still carries on the business of producing and/or manufacturing aluminium. It owns and operates an aluminium plant at Renukoot, in the district of Mirzapur, within the State of Uttar Pradesh. It produces and/or manufactures the following: (a) aluminium and alloy ingots, billets and wire bars, (b) aluminium wire rods known as 'properzi' rods, (c) aluminium rolled products in various shapes, (d) aluminium extrusions in various shapes and types of sections.
( 3 ) BESIDES HINDALCO, there are three other companies which produce and/or manufacture aluminium and its products. These companies are Bharat Aluminium Company Limited, which is a Central Government company the Madras Aluminium Company Ltd. , and Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. , here inafter referred to as BALCO, MALCO and INDALCO respectively.
( 4 ) THE production of aluminium in India is of vital importance and it is essential for the growth, development and maintenance of the economy. The Central Government by virtue of its power under Clause (xi) of Section 2 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 declared aluminium to be an essential commodity by a notification dated June 29, 1957.
( 5 ) THE demand for aluminium has been rising because of massive investment in generation, transmission and distribution of electricity, particularly in rural electrification programme. The demand for commercial grade aluminium has also been rising principally on account of compelling need for saving energy, aluminium being a very light metal with high heat conductivity. The production of aluminium in the country, however, has not been able to keep pace with the increase in demand although the present installed capacity is adequate to meet the current demand. The shortfall in production is due to inadequate availability of power to aluminium smelters. In the circumstances, the Central Government has been compelled to arrange import of aluminium since Sept 1977. Imports are now being made through the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation (hereinafter called MMTC ).
( 6 ) IN order to combat inflation in the price of aluminium the Central Government by a notification dated May 20, 1970, issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act passed the Aluminium Control Order, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Control Order) for the availability of aluminium and its products at fair prices and for regulating production, supply and distribution thereof. The Control Order was amended from time to time.
( 7 ) THE consumption of power for production of one metric tonne of aluminium varies in different smelters of country under optimum conditions. One paise variation in the power tariff rate leads to a variation of about, Rs. 170/-per tonne (according to HINDALCO Rs. l80/- per tonne) in the cost of production of aluminium. Different State Electricity Boards charge different power tariff rates to the smelters catered to by them. The cost of production of aluminium per metric tonne, therefore, varies widely in different sm
Advocate-General, State of Bihar v. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries
Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India
Anakapalle Co-Op. Agrl. and Industrial Society Ltd. v. Union of India
New India Sugar Works v. State of U.P.
City of Halifox v. Nova Scotia Car Works Limited
Diwan Sugar Mills v. Union of India
Govt. of Madras v. Zenith Lamps and Etectricals Ltd.
Southern Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals v. State of Kerala
Referred to : Darshanlal Anand Prakash v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Shillong
Ryots of Garabandha v. Zamindar of Parlakimedi
State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy
Panipat Co-Operative Sugar Mills v. Union of India
Laxmi Khandsari v. State of U.P.
Commr. Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Lakshmindra Tirtha Swamiar
Venkata Subbarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh
P.P. Enterprises v. Union of India
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.