S. H. SHETH, S. L. TALATI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is the owner of a Motor truck bearing registration No. GTD. 5657. The firm of Chandrakant Champaklal approached the petitioner as that firm had a desire to transport 93 bags of rice and therefore ultimately on 29-4-1975 the truck left Ahmedabad with 93 bags of rice. The case of the petitioner is that these rice bags were to be delivered to one Sahebchand Surajmal at Vapi. Such a transport from Ahmedabad to Vapi was legal according to the petitioner. The petitioner had not accompanied the truck but the driver of the petitioner drove the truck and driver did not take turn towards Vapi. The truck was intercepted near Nandigam which is a small village and it is within five miles of the border of Maharashtra. It was suspected that the rice bags were being carried across the said border and thus it was suspected that 93 bags of rice were being exported without the permit from Gujarat to the State of Maharashtra. The driver was questioned but he could not produce the permit for export. The result was that the rice bags and the truck were seized. The driver was prosecuted for the breach of Clause 3 of the Gujarat Rice (Export Control) and Paddy (Movement Control) Order 1966 He was convicted and he did not prefer any appeal against his conviction.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was served with a show cause notice under section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act. 1955 on 23 5-1975. At that time it was alleged that there was a breach of Clause 3 of the Gujarat Rice (Export control) and Paddy (Movement Control) Order 1966 After reply to that notice was received another show cause notice dated 29-71975 was served on the petitioner where it was alleged that there was also a breach of Clause 5 of the Gujarat Rice (Export Control) and Paddy (Movement Control) Order 1966 The order confiscating the truck was passed on 1-9-1975. Against that order Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 1975 was filed in the Court of Sessions Judge at Bulsar. By an order dated 28 the learned Sessions Judge Bulsar dismissed the appeal and the order confiscating the truck was confirmed. That order is now challenged by filing this petition.

( 3 ) THE learned Advocate Shri Shah who appeared on behalf of the petitioner raised the following three contentions :- (A) Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Acts 1955 is ultra vires Article 301 of the Constitution read with Article 304 of the Constitution inasmuch as it permits the imposition of restrictions on freedom of trade in disregard to Articles 302 and 304 (b) of the Constitution; (B) The Gujarat Rice (Export Control) and Paddy (Movement Control) Order 1966 is ultra vires the section 3 (1) of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 and section 3 (6) of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 as the order was not laid before both Houses of the Parliament and (C) The notification issued by the Government of India being No. G. S. R. 906 dated 9-6-1966 under sec. 5 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 suffers from excessive delegation and therefore it is bad.

( 4 ) TAKING the first contention it may be stated that sec. 5 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 is the section by which the powers are delegated. That section reads as under :-

( 5 ) THE Central Government may by notified order direct that the power to make orders under sec. 3 shall in relation to such matters and subject to such conditions if any as may be specified in the direction be exercisable also by (A) such officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government or (B) Such State Government or such officer or authority subordinate to a State Government as may be specified in the direction. Art. 301 of the Constitution of India is in Part XIII of the Constitution of India and that Chapter deals with Trade Commerce and Intercourse within the territory of India. Art. 301 reads as under :- 301 Subject to the other provisions of this Part trade commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India shall be free. 5 In order to apprec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document