Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :P.N.BHAGWATI, S.T.DESAI
RAMANLAL NAGARDAS SHETH - Appellant
Versus
PALNITKAR,collector,mehsana DISTRICT - Respondent
S.C.A. 242 of 1960
Decided On : 11/08/1960
Essential Commodities Act 1955 - Section 3 - Co-operative Societies - Distribution of Suger – Essential Commodity - Validity of State action in entrusting wholesale distribution of sugar which is an essential commodity Essential Commodities Act only to Co-operative Societies and excluding other dealers holding licenses like Co-operative Societies from such distribution - Action of State has been challenged by petitioners as violative of their fundamental rights Constitution of India and short question that arises is how far it can meet challenge - In order to appreciate contentions which have been urged on behalf of parties it is necessary to set out facts in some detail - Petitioners carry on business as partners in firm name of District - Petitioners firm has been carrying on business as wholesale sugar dealers since last twelve years and maintains a and an office for purpose of carrying on said business - Held, Last argument of Advocate General was that promotion of Co-operative movement is one of directive principles of State policy embodied in Constitution and that any legislation or executive or administrative action which recognizes and gives effect to this directive principle cannot be considered unconstitutional - Advocate General however found it difficult to sustain this argument and frankly stated to Court that if action of State offended against equal protection clause it could not be saved by resort directive principles of State policy - It is elementary that chapter of Fundamental Rights is sacrosanct and cannot be abridged by any Legislative or Executive Act or Order except to extent provided in appropriate Article - Directive principles of State policy must conform to and run as subsidiary to Chapter of Fundamental Rights - If therefore action of State is violative of provisions of it cannot be saved by any directive principles of State policy - State is obviously intentional and purposeful and if it cannot be justified on any reasonable principle of classification and court have already that it cannot be so justified it must be struck drown as violative of provisions - This argument advocate General must also therefore fail - Discrimination which results from executive action must therefore be deliberate and rooted in design and must not be result of mere erroneous or mistaken performance of a statutory duty - As pointed out in that case Constitution does not assure uniformity of decisions or immunity from merely erroneous action whether by Courts or executive agencies of a State - In a particular case unlawful administration of a statute by executive may result in its unequal application to those who are entitled to be treated alike but that does not amount to a denial of equal protection clause unless there is shown to be present in it an element of intentional or purposeful discrimination - Petition allowed.
( 1 ) THIS petition raises an interesting question regarding the validity of State action in entrusting wholesale distribution of sugar which is an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act 1955 only to Co-operative Societies and excluding other dealers holding licences like the Co-operative Societies from such distribution. This action of the State has been challenged by the petitioners as violative of their fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the short question that arises is how far it can meet the challenge of Article 14. In order to appreciate the contentions which have been urged on behalf of the parties it is necessary to set out the facts in some detail. The petitioners carry on business as partners in the firm name of Sheth Ramanlal Nagardas at Kalol in the Mehsana District.
( 2 ) THE petitioners firm has been carrying on business as wholesale sugar dealers since the last twelve years and maintains a godown and an office for the purpose of carrying on the said business. The petitioners firm used to purchase sugar of different qualities from various sugar factories outside the Mehsana District and import such sugar in the Mehsana District and sell the same to retail sugar dealers in the Mehsana District. The said business has been the main source of income of the petitioners.
( 3 ) AN Act called the Essential Commodities Act 1955 was passed by the Parliament to provide in the interests of the general public for the control of the production supply and distribution of and trade and commerce in certain commodities which were considered essential commodities. The said Act came into force on 1/04/1955. In exercise of the powers conferred on it by sec. 3 of the said Act the Central Government made an order called The Sugar (Control) Order 1955 and the said order was notified in the Official Gazette on 27/08/1955. The said Order will here-in-after be referred to by us as The Central Order. The distribution sale and price of sugar were controlled by the Central Government under the provisions of the Central Order. We shall examine the provisions of the Central Order a little later. But in the meantime suffice it to say that the petitioners firm continued to carry on its business as wholesale dealers in sugar even after the making of the Central Order. Under sec. 5 of the said Act the Central Government was empowered to delegate its power of making order under sec. 3 of the said Act to the State Government and in exercise of its said power the Central Government by a notification dated 15/11/1958 directed that the powers conferred on it by section 3 (1) of the said Act to make orders to provide for matters specified in clauses (a) (b) (d) (e) (f) (h) (i) and (j) of sub-section (2) thereof shall in relation to foodstuffs be exercisable also by a State Government subject to certain conditions The Government of Bombay thereafter in exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (d) (h) (i) and (j) of sub-section (2) of section 3 read with the said notification dated 15/11/1958 and with the prior concurrence of the Central Government made an order called the Bombay Sugar Dealers Licensing Order 1959 (hereinafter referred to by us as The Bombay Orders The Bombay Order extended to the whole State of Bombay and came into force on 1/06/1959. The Bombay Order defined a dealer and provided that no person shall carry on business as a dealer except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued in that behalf by the Licensing Authority. Various provisions were made in the Bombay Order regarding licences to be issued by the Licensing Authority. The Collector of Mehsana District who is the first respondent before us was appointed as the licensing authority for the Mehsana District under the provisions of the Bombay Order. Since the petitioners firm was covered by the definition of dealer contained in the Bombay Order the petitioners firm made an applica
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
