The main legal point established in the judgment is that the impugned order, issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, fell under S.3(2)(a) and required prior concurrence of the Central Government, which was not obtained, rendering the impugned order invalid.

Headnote:
Kerala Paddy (Restriction on Milling) Order - Validity - Essential Commodities Act, 1955, S.3, S.5 - The court discussed the validity of the Kerala Paddy (Restriction on Milling) Order, 1967 issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The court analyzed the provisions of S.3 and S.5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the delegation of powers by the Central Government to the State Government. The court also considered the concurrence of the Central Government for the impugned order and its compliance with the statutory provisions.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants, owners of rice mills, challenged the Kerala Paddy (Restriction on Milling) Order, 1967, seeking a writ declaring it invalid and null and void. The court found that the appellants were directly affected by the provisions of the impugned order and had locus standi to challenge it under Art.226 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the impugned order was not laid before both Houses of Parliament as required by S.3(6) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. However, the court held that the violation of S.3(6) did not render the impugned order invalid. The court also rejected the plea that the impugned order was a piece of colourable legislation. The court concluded that the impugned order was issued by the State Government as a delegate of the Central Government and did not exceed its authority.
Issues: The issues before the court included the validity of the impugned order under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the concurrence of the Central Government for the impugned order, and the classification of the impugned order under S.3(2)(a) or S.3(2)(d) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order fell under S.3(2)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and required prior concurrence of the Central Government, which was not obtained. Therefore, the impugned order was held to be invalid.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals, setting aside the decision of the learned Judge, and allowed the Original Petitions filed by the appellants, with no order as to costs.

Judgment :-

1. These appeals directed against the decision of Gopalan Nambiyar, J. involve a common point of law which relates to the validity of the Kerala Paddy (Restriction on Milling) Order, 1967. The learned judge upheld the validity of the Order over-ruling the several objections raised by the appellants.

2. The Kerala Paddy (Restriction on Milling) Order, 1967 has been issued by the Government of Kerala in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) read with clauses (d), (i) and 0) of sub-section (2) of S.3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Central Act 10 of 1955). The said provisions read:

"3. Powers to control production, supply, distribution, etc. of essential commodities.

(1) If the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, or for securing any essential commodity for the Defence of India or the efficient conduct of military operations it may, by order, provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by sub-section (1), an order made thereunder may provide

(a)

(b) ..............................

(c)

(d) for regulating by licences, permits or otherwise the storage, transport, distribution, disposal, acquisition, use or consumption of any essential commodity;

(e)

(f)

(g) ………………………

(h) ……………………

(i) for requiring persons engaged in the production, supply or distribution of, or trade and commerce ia, any essential commodity to maintain and produce for inspection such books, accounts and records relating to their business and to furnish such information relating thereto, as may be specified in the order;

0) for any incidental and supplementary matters, including in particular the entering and search of premises, vehicles, vessels and aircraft, and the seizure by a person authorised to make such search of any articles in respect of which such person has reason to believe that a contravention of the order has been, is being, or is about to be committed, and of any books of accounts and documents which in his opinion would be useful for, or relevant to, any proceedings under this Act and the return of such books of accounts and documents to the person from whom they were seized after copies thereof or extracts therefrom as certified by that person in the manner specified in the order have been taken."

S. 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which deals with the delegation of powers to make orders under S.3 by the Central Government reads:

"5. Delegation of powers. The Central Government may, by notified order, direct that the power to make orders under S.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 Government or such officer or authority subordinate to a State Government, as may be specified in the direction."

3. The Order GSR.1111 dated 24th July, 1967, issued by the Central Government under S.5 of the Essential Commodity Act, 1955 and amended by the Central Government by GSR. 284 dated 9-2-1968 is reproduced below:

"Delegation of Powers by the Central Government.

ORDER

New Delhi, the 24th July, 1967.

GSR. 1111. In exercise of the powers conferred by S.5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), and in supersession of the Order of the Government of India in the Ministry of Food, Agriculture Community Development and Cooparation (Department of Food) No. GSR. 906 dated the 9th June. 1966 (as subsequently amended), the Central Government hereby directs that the powers conferred on it by sub-section (1) of S.5 of the said Act to make orders to provide for the matters specified in clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (h), (i), (ii) and 0) o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1968 Supreme(Ker) 137

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the impugned order, issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, fell under S.3(2)(a) and required prior concurrence of the Central Government, which was not obtained, rendering the impugned order invalid.

Cases Referred (1)