ition No 7993 of 1982
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
RK Jain and RP Singh for the Petitioner
Prithiviraj and Mrs Shobha Dikshit for Respondent Nos 1 and 3 to 5
Kuldip Singh Additional Solicitor General Mr CV Subba Rao and B Parthasarthy for Respondent No 2
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNATHA SHETTY J
This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of Khandsari sugar
The petitioner challenges the validity of the UP Khandsari Sugar Levy order 1981 Levy order
It was issued in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the by virtue of delegation of power by the Central Government under Section 5 of the said Act
The levy order requires Khandsari manufacturing units to surrender levy of 50 of the production by sulphitation units in the first process
The balance 50 of that process with the total production by subsequent processes was left free to be sold in the open market by the manufacturing units
The price fixed for the levy Khandsari sugar was Rs 320 per quintal 
The petitioner challenges the price fixation on the ground that the State Government has not taken into consideration the guidelines in built in sub section 3C of section 3 of the 
The petitioner alleges that the levy order is unreasonable or excessive restriction on the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 191g and 14 of the Constitution
lt is also the case of the petitioner that the State Government sold the levy sugar by public auction realising large profit and the levy therefore was a colourable exercise of the power
Before considering these contentions we may start with recent observation of o Chinnappa Reddy J in Union of India vs Cynamide India Ltd AIR 1987 Sept SC 1802 at 1805 
Price fixation is neither the function nor the forte of the Court
We concern ourselves neither with the policy nor with the rates
But we do not totally deny ourselves the jurisdiction to inquire into the question in appropriate 580 proceedings whether relevant considerations have gone in and irrelevant considerations kept out of the determination of the price
For example if the legislature has decreed the pricing policy and prescribed the factors which should guide the determination of the price we wilt if necessary inquire into the question whether the policy and the factors are present to the mind of the authorities specifying the price
But our examination will stop there
We will go no further
We will not deluge ourselves with more facts and figures
The assembling of the raw materials and the mechanics of the price fixation are the concern of the executive and we leave it to them
And we will not revaluate the considerations even if the prices are demonstrably injurious to some manufacturers or producers
The Court will of course examine if there is any hostile discrimination
That is a different cup of tea  altogether
 This will be the parametre and the limitation of inquiry by Courts whenever the price fixation of any essential commodity is called into question
The Court does not act like a Chartered accountant nor acts like an Income Tax officer
The Court is not concerned with any individual case or any particular problem
The Court only examines whether the price determined was with due regard to considerations provided by the statute
And whether extraneous matters have been excluded from determination
In the present case even this limited inquiry appears to be unnecessary
The validity of the same levy order was the subject matter of decision of this Court in New India Sugar Works vs State of Uttar Pradesh  Ors
l  There Fazal Ali J who spoke for the Bench observed It was next strongly contended that in fixation of the price of levy sugar the Government has not taken into consideration the fact that the petitioners would undergo a serious loss because the price would not be sufficient even to cover their manufacturing cost
We are however unable to agree with this argument
The policy of price control has for its dominant object equitable distribution and availability of the commodity at fair price so as to benefit the consumers
It is manifest that individual interest however precious they may be must yield to the larger interest of the 581 community viz in the instant case the large body of the consumers of sugar
In fact even if the petitioners have to bear some loss there can be no question of the restrictions imposed on the petitioners being unreasonable
In Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd vs UOI this Court observed as follows
If fair price is to be fixed leaving a reasonable margin of profit there is never any question of infringment of fundamental right to carry on business by imposing reasonable restrictions
In determining the reasonableness of a restriction imposed by law in the field of industry trade or commerce it has to be remembered that the mere fact that some of those who are engaged in these are alleging loss after the imposition of law will not render the law unreasonable Emphasis supplied
Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Prag Ice and oil Mills  Anr
vs Union of India   where the Court speaking through Beg CJ Observed as follows It has also to be remembered that the object is to secure equitable distribution and availability at fair price so that it is the interest of the consumer and not of the producer which is the determining factor in applying any objective tests at any particular time
 In this view of the matter the primary consideration in the fixation of price would be the interest of consumers rather than that of the producers
Moreover we think that since the petitioners are allowed to sell freely at any rate they like the remaining 50 of the sugar after excluding the 50 which they have to give for levy as also the produce by the second and third process the loss if any caused to the petitioners would be minimal
Mr RK Jain learned counsel for the petitioner however urged that the above case did not lay down the correct law
He said that the primary consideration in the fixation of price would not be the interest of consumers but to ensure a reasonable return to producers
That H 582 according to him the law laid down by this Court in i The Panipat Co operative Sugar Mills vs Union of India 19731 2 SCR 860 and Anakapalle Coop
 Industrial Society Ltd vs Union of India  Ors
   Since these two decisions have not been referred to in the New India Sugar Works case we should refer this case to a larger bench for decision
We do not think that the counsel is justified in his submission
We do not find any diversity of views taken in the aforesaid cases
All those cases concerned with the price fixation of the essential commodity under the essential Commodities Act
The primary object of the Act was to control the production supply and distribution of essential commodities and to make such commodities available at a reasonable price
The Preamble of the Act makes it clear
It reads An Act to provide in the interest of the general public for the control of the production supply and distribution of and trade and commerce in certain commodities
 The exercise provided under the Act was intended ultimately to serve the interest of consumers
It is fundamental in the entire scheme of the Act
But then the interest of the industry as a whole cannot be left out
It is also required to be borne in mind
The levy price of sugar should ensure reasonable return to the industry
That is one of the guidelines provided under sub section 3C of Section 3 of the 
But that does not mean that the interest of producers should outweigh the interest of consumers
It would be tilting the balance too much
Such a contention in our opinion also runs afoul of our earlier analysis
It is true that there is no express reference to Panipat and Anakapalle in the judgment in New India Sugar Works
But the judgment need not be a digest of cases
It need not be written like a thesis
The decision in New India Sugar Works may be brief but not less predictable on the principles of Panipat and Anakapalle
There this Court found the levy price reasonable even from the point of view of the industry
This Court took into consideration the liberty reserved to manufacturers to sell freely 50 of the Sugar manufactured and also 100 of the produce by 2nd and 3rd processes
This Court was of opinion that by such a free sale the industry could get reasonable return
We agree with this conclusion and see no reason for reconsideration
As to the grievance of the petitioner that the State has made 583 profit by the sale of Khandsari sugar at public auction we perused the counter affidavit of the State
We do not find any colourable exercise of the power
There was every justification for the sale by public auction
It has been stated that the petitioner and some other producers delivered inferior quality of Khandsari
That was found to be unacceptable to consumers at Fair Price Shops
The State officers accordingly reported to the Government
The Government issued instructions to distribute the levy sugar liberally through permits for marriages and religious functions
The consumers however could not come forward
The Government then directed the disposal of levy sugar by public auction
It was not with a view to earn profit although incidentally the Government made some profit
The levy sugar was brought to public sale only to prevent deterioration when the consumers refused to accept it
We have no reason to doubt the explanation given by the State Government
In the result the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed with costs
NPV Petition dismissed


Summary:
Rule 63 of the UP State Handloom Corporation Rules stipulates termination of temporary service on one month s notice on either side
Rule 68 provides that if the punishment of discharge or dismissal is imposed an enquiry commensurate with requirements of natural justice is a condition precedent
The appellant was employed in the aforesaid Corporation on temporary basis
The order of appointment stated that his services were liable for termination with one month s notice or one month s pay in lieu of notice on either side
He was placed under suspension in November 1982 on charges of misconduct dereliction of duty mismanagement and showing fictitious production entries
That order however was revoked in November 1983 and his services terminated forthwith by notice entitling him to one month s salary
The High Court held that the termination was not punitive and the question of breach of principles of natural justice did not arise
In this appeal by special leave it was contended that the appellant was entitled to the protection of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution that though his order of termination was innocuous the setting in which it has been made clearly makes it an order of dismissal punitive in character and that as his service was determined by the order attaching stigma the appellant was entitled to a hearing commensurate with rules of natural justice and in the absence of the opportunity of being heard the order was liable to be quashed
Dismissing the appeal  HELD As long as the adverse feature of the employee remains the motive and does not become transferred as the foundation of the order of termination it is unexceptionable
Whether motive  has be 502 come the foundation has to be decided by the Court with reference to the facts of a given case
510 G It is necessary for every employer to assess the service of the temporary incumbent in order to find out as to whether he should be confirmed in his appointment or his services should be terminated
It may also be necessary to find out whether the officer should be tried for some more time on temporary basis
Since both in regard to a temporary employee or an officiating employee in a higher post such an assessment would be necessary merely because the appropriate authority proceeds to make an assessment and leaves a record of its views the same would not be available to be utilised to make the order of termination following such assessment punitive in character
509G H 510A B There may be cases where an enquiry is undertaken and prima facie material for serious charges are found by disclosing the result of such preliminary enquiry the officer concerned is put under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary action
After such steps have been taken the employerappropriate authority decides not to continue the departmental proceedings but makes an order terminating the service
510C D In the instant case the appellant was a temporary servant and had no right to the post
Both under the contract of service as also the Service Rules governing him the employer had the right to terminate his services by giving him one month s notice
The order of termination was in innocuous terms
It did not cast any stigma on him nor did it visit him with any evil consequences
The order was therefore not open to challenge
S11C D The appellant is not entitled to compensation under the law
But since he has been put out of employment at an advanced age and it may be difficult for him to get an alternate employment the Corporation to pay him a consolidated amount of Rs25000
511F Purshotam Lal Dhingra vs Union of India   Champaklal Chimanlal Shah vs The Union of India  Shamsher Singh  Anr
vs State of Punjab   Regional Manager  Anr
vs Pawan Kumar Dubey   State of UP vs Ram Chandra Trivedi and State of Orissa  Anr
vs Ram Narayan Dass 19611 I SCR 606 referred to