Appeal No 873 of 1975 From the Judgment and Order dated 11 11 1974 of the Allahabad
High Court in Civil Misc
Writ Petition No 697674 AND Civil Appeal No 1748 of 1975
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated  8 11 1974 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc
Writ Petition No 693274
AND Civil Appeal No 1425 of 1974
From the Judgment and Order dated 1 9 1972 of the Allahabad
High Court in Special Appeal No 866
AN Parekh for the appellants in CA 174875
Yogeshwar Prasad for the appellants in CA 87375
DN Misra for the appellant in CA 142574
LN Sinha Solicitor General SN Prasad In CA 87375 and Girish Chandra for the respondents iii all the appeals
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY CJ
Civil Appeals Nos 873 and 1425 are by cer tificate under Article 1331 of the Constitution of India and Civil Appeal No 1748 is by special leave
605 Ray CJ These appeals turn on the question whether the Commis sion described as the Forward Market Commission under the Forward Contract Regulation Act 1952 can impose condi tions under section 14 A and Section 14 B on the commodities in respect of which business can be carried on by persons who apply for registration
This Court in Union of India  Anr
vs Ms Rajdhani Grains and Jaggery Exchange Ltd  Ors
1975 Supp
SCR1 dealt with this specific question and came to the conclusion that the specification of the commodities in respect of which the business can be carried on is a condition con cerned with the regulation and control of the business relating to forward contracts
It is idle to suggest that the Commission in granting certificate of registration to carry on business will not be competent to specify the commodities in which the persons asking for registration will deal
Another contention was raised before us that the provi sions contained in Section 4 of the Forward Contract Regu lation Act 1952 do not confer power on the Commission to impose conditions
This contention is also repelled by the decision of this Court to which reference has already been made
It has been held in that case that the Commission alone is vested with power to impose conditions in regard to commodities in respect of which forward contracts can be entered into by a particular association
Sections 15 to 18 of the Act do not clash with the power of the Commission to impose conditions in respect of commodities in which busi ness of forward contract can be carried on
Another contention was advanced before us that with regard to the recognised associations the Commission had no power to impose conditions with regard to commodities in which they deal
This contention is also answered by the decision of this Court supra
Further the provisions contained in Chapter III A specifically deal with registra tion of all associations concerned with regulation and control of forward contracts and the power of the Commis sion to grant or refuse such certificate of registration
All contentions advanced by the appellants are already answered  by the decision of this Court supra and the observations made herein
The appeals are therefore dis missed
There will be no order as to costs
PHP Appeals dismissed


Summary:
The appellants contended that the Forward Market Commis sion under the Forward Contract Regulation Act 1952 cannot impose conditions under sections 14A and 14B on the commodities in respect of which business can be carried out by persons who apply for registration
Secondly the provisions
contained in section 4 of the Act do not confer power on the Commission to impose conditions
Thirdly in respect of recognised associations the Commission had no power to impose conditions with regard to commodities in which they deal
Dismissing the appeal HELD All the 3 conditions raised in the present appeal are covered against the appellant by the decision of this Court in the case of Union India vs Ms Rajdhani Grain and Jaggery Exchange Ltd reported in 1975 Supp SCR 1
605 B F