Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Prem Chand Jain and Surinder Singh JJ.
Rikhi Ram
Versus
State Of Haryana
Letter Patent Appeal No. 178 of 1974,
Decided On : OCTOBER 29, 1975
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 19(1)(G) - ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 - SECTIONS 3, 6 - HARYANA WHEAT DEALERS LICENSING AND PRICE CONTROL ORDER, 1973 - HARYANA WHEAT (RESTRICTION ON STOCK BY PRODUCERS) ORDER, 1973 - INTER-ZONAL WHEAT AND WHEAT PRODUCTS (MOVEMENT CONTROL) ORDER, 1973 - VALIDITY - CHALLENGED ON GROUNDS OF VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19(1)(G) OF THE CONSTITUTION - HELD, ORDERS ARE VALID AND DO NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 19(1)(G).
Fact of the Case:
Appellants, who are Chakki-owners and traders dealing in grinding of wheat, challenged the validity of various Orders issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, including the Haryana Wheat Dealers Licensing and Price Control Order, 1973, the Haryana Wheat (Restriction on Stock by Producers) Order, 1973, and the Inter-Zonal Wheat and Wheat Products (Movement Control) Order, 1973, on the ground that they violated their fundamental right to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned Orders were not violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It found that the price of wheat fixed by the Government was not arbitrary and that a considerable margin had been left for the traders. It also held that the restriction on the maximum quantity of wheat that a producer could possess was not violative of Article 19(1)(g) as it was a reasonable restriction in the interest of the community. Further, the Court held that the Movement Control Order did not impinge upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution as the appellants had not applied for a permit under the Order and, therefore, had no locus standi to challenge it.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned Orders violated the appellants' fundamental right to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution? 2. Whether the price of wheat fixed by the Government was arbitrary? 3. Whether the restriction on the maximum quantity of wheat that a producer could possess was violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution? 4. Whether the Movement Control Order impinged upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned Orders were not violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution as they were reasonable restrictions in the interest of the community. 2. The Court found that the price of wheat fixed by the Government was not arbitrary as a considerable margin had been left for the traders. 3. The Court held that the restriction on the maximum quantity of wheat that a producer could possess was not violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution as it was a reasonable restriction in the interest of the community. 4. The Court held that the Movement Control Order did not impinge upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution as the appellants had not applied for a permit under the Order and, therefore, had no locus standi to challenge it.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal with costs.
SURINDER SINGH, J.
1. Rikhi Ram and others have appealed under Clause X of the Letters Patent of this Court against the judgment of a learned single Judge, dated 13.02.1974, passed in Rikhi Ram V/s. State of Haryana, Civil Writ Petition No. 2570 of 1973. The facts in regard to the said writ petition may be briefly noticed.
2. Appellants 1 to 10 are Chakki-owners, who are carrying on the business of grinding wheat at Kalka (State of Haryana). Appellants 11 and 12 are said to be traders dealing in grinding of wheat. The appellants claim to be holders of a licence in form B under the Haryana Wheat Dealers Licensing and Price Control Order, 1973 (for short, the Price Control Order), copy of which is Annexure A to the writ petition. Though not very material but it may be stated here that in the return filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 the stand taken is that appellants Nos. 11 and 12 have not obtained a licence under the above Order. A detailed reference was made in the writ petition to some Orders issued in exercise of the powers conferred u/s. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), other than the Price Control Order referred to above. The first one is the Inter-Zonal Wheat and Wheat Products (Movement Control) Order, 1973 (for brevity, the Movement Control Order), issued by the Central Government on 31.03.1973, and published in the Haryana Government Gazette dated 24.04.1973, a copy of which is Annexure B to the writ petition. The State of Haryana did not find mention in the List of States and Union Territories constituting the various zones in the Schedule attached with the original Movement Control Order but as per an amendment issued on 2.04.1973, this State was included in the List. A copy of the amending Order is also on the record. The third Order referred to in the writ petition is the Haryana Wheat (Restriction on Stock by Producers) Order, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Stock Order), copy whereof is Annexure C to the writ petition. This Order was issued by the Haryana Government on 20.06.1973, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 3 of the Act, read with the Orders enabling the Haryana Government to legislate in these matters with the prior concurrence of the Central Government. In the body of the writ petition, the legality of another notification dated 26.06.1973, issued under the Haryana Wheat Dealers Licensing and Price Control Order, 1973, copy whereof is Annexure D to the writ petition, was also questioned, though this challenge appears to have been curtailed in the prayer made at the conclusion of the petition. However, the order of the learned single Judge, which is impugned in the present appeal, indicates that when the matter was canvassed before that Court, the legality of all the above mentioned Orders was mooted.
3. The various points which were urged before the learned single Judge have been specifically formulated in the judgment as follows:-
(1) The price of wheat has been fixed at an arbitrary figure. The market value of wheat is much higher and the traders, especially the chakki owners, are left with no profit. This arbitrary fixation of price has violated their fundamental right guaranteed to them under Art. 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution.
(2) No uniform price of wheat can be fixed for areas which normally produce wheat and those areas in which the wheat is produced in almost negligible quantity.
(3) The State Government cannot make fixation of the prices unless it also ensure adequate supply of wheat to the trades like chakki owners.
4. Re: point (1) which was considered at great length by the learned single Judge, concisely speaking, it was held that there was no basis to hold that the price of wheat fixed by the Government was arbitrary. Accepting the stand of the respondents, it was also held that the fact that the Government itself purchased ordinary wheat at the rate of Rs. 76/- per quintal and the chakki owners and other traders
AI
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
