Back
High Court Of Orissa
R. N. Misra And B. K. Ray, JJ.
BIJOY KUMAR ROUTRAI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - Respondent
O. J. C 444 Of 1975
Decided On : 05/13/1975
The Orissa Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order, 1974 (the Order) was challenged on the grounds of excessive delegation of legislative function, arbitrary and unguided power vested on subordinate executive authorities, contravention of Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution, unreasonable restrictions with regard to the holding of property, violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, non-inclusion of paddy as a foodstuff, absence of provision for securing equitable distribution and availability of paddy at fair prices, arbitrary power of seizure, search, et cetera, and finality attached to appellate decisions. The Court held that the Order was ultra vires the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act) and quashed it. The Court found that the basis of imposition of levy under Clause 3 of the Order was in excess of the basic provision in Section 3 (2) (f) of the Act, as the Order subjected landholders to a direction for sale on the basis of landholding, while the Act required a direction for sale of a specified part of the stock in the hands of the person to be subjected to the order. The Court also held that the definition of 'irrigated land' in Clause 2 (e) of the Order was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it classified categories of lands very dissimilar in nature together. Additionally, the Court found that the Order did not make any provision for securing equitable distribution and availability of paddy at fair prices, as required by the Act, and that the powers of seizure, search, et cetera, conferred on certain categories of public officers under Clause 12 of the Order were arbitrary. The Court further held that the finality attached to appellate decisions under Clause 9 of the Order was not justified, as the appellate authority was not entitled to act in derogation of the scheme of the Order and was not empowered to travel beyond the limits set by the Order.
Fact of the Case:
The Orissa Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order, 1974 (the Order) was challenged on various grounds, including excessive delegation of legislative function, arbitrary power vested in subordinate executive authorities, contravention of Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution, unreasonable restrictions on property holding, violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, non-inclusion of paddy as a foodstuff, absence of provision for equitable distribution of paddy, arbitrary powers of seizure and search, and finality of appellate decisions.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Order was ultra vires the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act) and quashed it. The Court found that the basis of imposition of levy under Clause 3 of the Order was in excess of the basic provision in Section 3 (2) (f) of the Act, as the Order subjected landholders to a direction for sale on the basis of landholding, while the Act required a direction for sale of a specified part of the stock in the hands of the person to be subjected to the order. The Court also held that the definition of 'irrigated land' in Clause 2 (e) of the Order was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it classified categories of lands very dissimilar in nature together. Additionally, the Court found that the Order did not make any provision for securing equitable distribution and availability of paddy at fair prices, as required by the Act, and that the powers of seizure, search, et cetera, conferred on certain categories of public officers under Clause 12 of the Order were arbitrary. The Court further held that the finality attached to appellate decisions under Clause 9 of the Order was not justified, as the appellate authority was not entitled to act in derogation of the scheme of the Order and was not empowered to travel beyond the limits set by the Order.
Issues: 1. Whether the Order was ultra vires the Act. 2. Whether the basis of imposition of levy under Clause 3 of the Order was in excess of the basic provision in Section 3 (2) (f) of the Act. 3. Whether the definition of 'irrigated land' in Clause 2 (e) of the Order was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 4. Whether the Order made any provision for securing equitable distribution and availability of paddy at fair prices, as required by the Act. 5. Whether the powers of seizure, search, et cetera, conferred on certain categories of public officers under Clause 12 of the Order were arbitrary. 6. Whether the finality attached to appellate decisions under Clause 9 of the Order was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Order was ultra vires the Act and quashed it. The Court found that the basis of imposition of levy under Clause 3 of the Order was in excess of the basic provision in Section 3 (2) (f) of the Act, as the Order subjected landholders to a direction for sale on the basis of landholding, while the Act required a direction for sale of a specified part of the stock in the hands of the person to be subjected to the order. The Court also held that the definition of 'irrigated land' in Clause 2 (e) of the Order was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it classified categories of lands very dissimilar in nature together. Additionally, the Court found that the Order did not make any provision for securing equitable distribution and availability of paddy at fair prices, as required by the Act, and that the powers of seizure, search, et cetera, conferred on certain categories of public officers under Clause 12 of the Order were arbitrary. The Court further held that the finality attached to appellate decisions under Clause 9 of the Order was not justified, as the appellate authority was not entitled to act in derogation of the scheme of the Order and was not empowered to travel beyond the limits set by the Order.
Final Decision: The Court held that the Order was ultra vires the Act and quashed it.
R. N. MISRA, J.
( 1 ) THESE nine applications have been made under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the vires of the Orissa Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order. 1974 made by the State Government of Orissa in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), read with the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Agriculture (Department of Food) No. G. S. R.-316 (E), dated the 20th June, 1972. The petitioners have made different allegations on questions of fact, such as the quantity of land possessed, the nature of such land, the quantum of levy demanded et cetera to which we shall advert at the appropriate place. But common questions of law have been pleaded and argued by these petitioners and on behalf of the State Government, resistance has been offered to these applications on common grounds of law. These applications have been heard together. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of all these applications by a common judgment.
( 2 ) THE State Government of Orissa by notification dated 19th of November, 1974, promulgated an order called the Orissa Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order, 1974 (hereafter referred to as the 'order') in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereafter called the 'act')as delegated in its favour by the Central Government vide the notification dated 20th June, 1972, under Section 5 thereof. The requisitioning authority in exercise of powers vested under Clause 3 of the Order issued notices requiring the petitioners to sell and deliver to the persons named in the notices at the declared price within the time indicated in such notices the quantity of paddy shown therein. Most of the petitioners preferred appeals as provided under clause 9 of the Order to the Tahasildar. In some cases, the Tahasildar after making such enquiries as he found necessary reduced the demand, in some other cases he sustained the demand, while yet in some instances he even enhanced the demand. We propose to deal with the legal contentions first and thereafter advert to the facts of each case.
( 3 ) THE following contentions have been raised on behalf of the petitioners in support of their challenge regarding the ultra vires character of the Order:-
(1) The power conferred on the requisitioning authority under Clauses 3 and 4 of the Order is bad on account of excessive delegation of legislative function as also on the ground that arbitrary, un-guided and, uncanalised power has been vested on very subordinate executive authorities. (2) The basis of imposition of levy under Clause 3 of the Order is in excess of--or contrary to--the basic provision in Section 3 (2) (f) of the Act, inasmuch as while under the statute, the demand of levy is relatable to 'holding in stock' of the person on whom levy is imposed, under the order, levy is imposable on 'land holding'. (3) 'declared price' as defined in Clause 2 (c) of the Order and the manner of payment of the price for the quantity of paddy in respect of which levy is demanded are at variance with the provision in the Act. Therefore, enforcement of the demand is contrary to law. As failure to comply with the demand gives rise to criminal liability, the illegal demand is liable to be quashed. (4) The order imposes unreasonable restrictions with regard to the holding of property and has the effect of compelling land-holders to part with the produce of their land at a consideration which is less than the market price. That part of the order is, therefore, violative of the guarantees under Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution. (5) The definition of 'irrigated land' appearing in Clause 2 (e) of the order is contended to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, inasmuch as lands which are actually irrigated and lands which are capable of being irrigated have been classed together though patently they are of different classes. (6) It has also been contended that paddy is n
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
