A law that is vague, arbitrary, and unreasonable, and does not provide a fair and just procedure for depriving a person of their fundamental right to carry on business, is violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

R.L.Anand, J.

1. Bunch of writ petitions, whose numbers have been given in Schedule A of this judgment and which will be considered as part of the judgment, are being disposed of by this judgment as common questions of law and fact are involved in all the writ petitions and for the purpose of facts I am taking these from C.W.P. No. 5643 of 1995 (Tarsem Singh v. Union of India and Ors).

2. Tarsem Singh, Sales Assistant, working in Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd., Zira, District Ferozepur (for short IFFCO), has filed the writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of an appropriate writ/direction, especially in the nature of certiorari, for the quashment of the Government of India notification No. G.S.R. 758(E) dated 25.9.1985, issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, New Delhi, under section 3(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 , and called "Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, as illegal, ultra vires of the Constitution, and the petitioner further prayed to issue the suitable directions to respondents No. 1 to 4, i.e the Union of India through the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, New Delhi; Director, Agriculture, Punjab, Chandigarh; and the Chief Agricultural Officer, Ferozepur; not to take any action against the petitioner under the aforesaid notification and for quashing the F.I.R. registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with clause 19(1) of the Fertilizers Control Order, 1985, referred to above.

3. The case set up by the petitioner Tarsem Singh in the writ petition is that he is the employee of the IFFCO, which is a Government Undertaking dealing with the various types of fertilizers and was working as a Sales Assistant. At the relevant time he was posted at Tanda Urmar. He sells the f(sic)rt User of IFFCO Brand and the Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-operative Limited (IFFCO) is the manufacturer of the fertilizer. Under Section 3(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Central Government has been empowered to regulate or prohibit the production, supply, distribution of/and trade and commerce in any essential commodities with a view to maintaining of increasing the supplies thereof and for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices or for securing any essential commodities for the defence of India or efficient conduct of military operation. In exercise of the powers under Section 3(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short the Act), the Central Government issued the impugned notification dated 25.9.1985, which was published in the Gazette of India, whereby "The Fertilizers Control Order 1985" has been enacted and brought into force. According to Clause 19(1) of the said Control Order, no person shall himself or by any person on his behalf manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, stock or exhibit for sale or distribution any fertilizer, which is not of prescribed standard and further the specifications of the fertiliser have been defined in part-A of the Schedule of the said Control order. The petitioner further states that on 5.9.1990 a sample of DAP Fertilizer was drawn by the respondent-authorities from the premises of IFFCO Farmers Service Centre, Zira. The said sample was sent to the Fertilizer Quality Control Laboratory, Ludhiana, vide order dated 7.9.1990 and the Laboratory found the sample as of Non-Standard. According to the petitioner, the sample was taken by the respondent-authorities from the machine stitched bag, which was sealed by the manufacturing company of the said fertilizer, i.e., IFFCO, Kandla (Gujrat). At the time of the drawing of the sample three test samples were prepared. Out of these one test sample was given to the petitioner and one remained in the custody of respondent No. 4, whereas the third sample was sent to the Laboratory, which vide its report AR No. 2618 dated 25.10.1990 declared it as Non-Sta