The regulation of LPG pressure regulators is justified under the Essential Commodities Act as they are essential for public safety and do not infringe upon the manufacturers' fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g).

JUDGMENT :

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present petition, being W.P.(C) No. 14682/2006, has been filed, inter alia, challenging the Order dated 26.04.2000, [Impugned Order dated 26.04.2000] issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, [Ministry] , whereby the Respondents, by virtue of its powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, [Act], has sought to regulate petroleum and petroleum products by including therein certain items which are ancillary to and used in the supply and distribution of the restricted products.

2. Though the Petitioners have also sought certain other reliefs, in the nature of a writ of mandamus for registration of the Petitioner No.1 as one of their suppliers and to authorize them to supply regulators, as also a writ in the nature of mandamus seeking a direction for the non-interference with the manufacture and sale of pressure regulators, the said reliefs as are elaborated in Paras (b) and (c) of the Prayer have not been pressed.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has only pressed into service the challenge to the Impugned Order passed by the Ministry. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that this challenge has a direct and consequential bearing on LPA No. 1220/2007, which has been preferred by the Petitioners against the Judgment dated 05.09.2007, [Impugned Judgment dated 05.09.2007] passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2753/2007. By the said Judgment impugned in the LPA aforementioned, the learned Single Judge held that there was no cancellation of the license for pressure regulators, but merely a case of non-renewal of the license in respect of regulators with a collar diameter of 25.6 mm, as the same came to be deleted. Such variation was, in turn, a consequence of the Order impugned in the present writ petition.

4. In view of the same, by way of the present judgement, while dealing with the issues and challenges raised in W.P.(C) No. 14682/2006, we intend to dispose of both W.P.(C) No. 14682/2006 and LPA No. 1220/2007 by a common judgement.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 14682/2006 has raised a two-fold challenge to the Impugned Order dated 26.04.2000.

6. The first contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that the goods in question - i.e., the pressure regulators - do not qualify as 'Essential Commodities‟, and resultantly, there arose no cause for the passage of the Impugned Order dated 26.04.2000. In support of this argument, reliance is placed on Section 2A(1) of the Act wherein 'essential commodity’ has been defined as a commodity which is specified in the Schedule appended to the Act and it is contended that by the use of word 'means’ the same excludes the possibility of there being an inclusive definition and the definition would have to be restricted only to such of those commodities as are set out in the Schedule appended to the Act. Section 2A (1) of the Act reads as follows: -

“2A. Essential commodities declaration, etc.- (1) For the purposes of this Act, essential commodity means a commodity specified in the Schedule.”

7. The Schedule appended to the Act, more speci