tition Nos
89681 865 890 577 591 592 606 607 621 622 628 629 633 634 37 964 88 544 545 575 766 774 775 776 902 63 897 901 535 37 532 34 529 531 639 and 540 4381
Under Article 32 of the Constitution HK Puri for the Petitioners in WP 89681
Vimal Dave for the Petitioners in WP 865 89081
AK Sen RM Dube and Sarva Mitter for the Petitioners in WPs 540 4381
30 Soli J Sorabjee SS Ray AK Sen and RK Jain for the Petitioners in WPs 529 37 544 575 577 538 766 776 and 897 98881
SS Ray Soli J Sorabjeee and RK Jain for the Petitioners in WPs 634 3781
Lal Narain Sinha Attorney General OP Rana and Mrs section Dikshit for the Respondent State of UP in WPs 540 43 529 37 540 43 544 77 and 577 63881
M K Banerjee Addl
and SK Gambhir for the State of Madhya Pradesh
Miss A Subhashini for Union of India
The Order of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI J Having heard counsel for the parties at great length we are satisfied that there is no violation of the fundamental right of the petitioners enshrined in article 191g of the Constitution of India nor is article 14 attracted to the facts of the present case
There is therefore no good ground to entertain the petitions
We would however like to add that on the materials placed before us the Government may consider the desirability of adopting such measures as may soften the rigours of the impugned orders which though not arbitrary or excessive so as to violate article 14 or 19 do merit some consideration by the Government in order to effectuate the policy under which the impugned notification was made
There are however two arguments urged before us which need special mention
In the first place it was submitted that in the UP cases the order impugned imposing a levy on the khandsari produced by the petitioners cannot have any retrospective operation so as to apply to the stock of sugar manufactured prior to the date of the order and would apply only to the sugar produced after the coming into force of the impugned notification
So far as this argument is concerned we find no substance in the same because it is not a question of retrospectivity of the statute but its actual working
Once the notification imposing the levy was made it will obviously apply to stock of khandsari produced by the petitioners either before or after the order
This principle has been clearly laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Trimbak Damodar Raipurkar vs Assaram Hiraman Patil and Ors1 where Gajendragadkar J speaking for the Court regarding the 31 scope of a Rent Act and Amendment in Rent Act observed as follows In this connection it is relevant to distinguish between an existing right and a vested right
Where a statute operates in future it cannot be said to be retrospective merely because within the sweep of its operation all existing rights are included
This Court followed the dictum of Buckley LJ in the case of West vs Gwynne1 In the aforesaid case Buckley LJ while construing an amendment in the Act by which the contract was governed observed as follows The Act of 1881 thus expressed that in the case of leases made either before or after the commencement of the Act a covenant not to assign without licence should be enforceable just as before This section is to be read as if it were contained in the Act of 1881 and is dealing with a subject matter mentioned in the Act of 1881 and as to which there is in that Act a provision that the enactment shall apply to leases made either before or after commencement of the Act Hardy MR in a concurring judgment while construing second amendment in section 14 of the Conveyancing Act pointed out thus In the First place the language of the section is perfectly general in all leases and there is nothing in the section itself to confine it to leases subsequent to the Act
Almost every statute affects rights which would have been in existence but for the statute
 In these circumstances therefore once the notification for imposing the levy was made it will naturally apply to the stock of sugar which was with the petitioners irrespective of the fact that it was manufactured before or after the Order
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 32 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 interests however precious they may be must yield to the larger interest of the community namely 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 UOI1 this Court observed as follows If fair price is to be fixed leaving a reasonable margin of profit there is never any question of infringement 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 and Anr
vs Union of India2 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 prices 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 the 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 fifty per cent of sugar after excluding the fifty per cent which they have to give for levy as also the produce by the second and third processes the loss if any caused to the petitioners would be minimal
Lastly it was urged that Sub Clause 5 which is Sub Clause 3 in the notification issued by the Madhya Pradesh Government 33 in the impugned notification issued by the UP Government is extremely arbitrary inasmuch as by insisting on certificates it deprived the petitioners of the free sale of sugar of the remaining amount of fifty per cent as also the Khandsari produced by second and third processes
We see some force in this argument but the Attorney General frankly conceded that he will see that no inconvenience on this score is caused to the petitioners
He gave an undertaking to the Court that he will get the respective Sub Clauses 5 and 3 of the impugned orders of the UP and Madhya Pradesh Governments deleted or withdrawn so as to allow the petitioners to sell the remaining amount of sugar as also the stock produced by the second and third processes without any hitch or hindrance
This will however be subject to routine and quick inspection
In view of this undertaking therefore we feel that a substantial part of the grievances of the petitioners would be removed
To be on the safe side however we allow the stay granted in all the petitions to continue until the provisions of respective Sub Clauses 3 and 5 passed by the State Governments concerned are withdrawn
We may also emphasise the fact that the amount of sugar taken by the Government through levy should be properly stored and duly protected from rain and rot and be despatched to the various control depots expeditiously in order to ensure a quick and equitable distribution of the commodity amongst the people at moderate rates
The Government may also consider the desirability of giving a bare minimum hearing to the representative of the owners of the cane crushers in future before fixing the rate at which the levy is taken from the owners so as to see that the owners of the crushers are not put to such great loss that they are completely wiped out from business
With these observations the petitions are dismissed
NKA Petitions dismissed


Summary:
On the questions 1 whether an order imposing a levy on Khandsari could have retrospective operation so as to apply to sugar manufactured prior to the date of the order and 2 whether in fixing the price of levy sugar the Government should consider that the price fixed should be sufficient to cover the manufacturing cost
 HELD 1
It is not the question of retrospectivity of a statute but its actual working that is relevant
It is settled law that where a statute operates in future it cannot be said to be retrospective merely because within the sweep of its operation all existing rights are included
Once the notification for imposing the levy was made it will naturally apply to the existing stocks of khandsari with the petitioners irrespective of whether it was manufactured before or after the order
31B 30G 2
The policy of price control has for its dominant object equitable distribution and availability of the commodity at fair price to benefit the consumers
Individual interest however precious must yield to the larger interest of the community namely the consumers
Even if the petitioners have to bear some loss there could be no question of the restrictions imposed on them being unreasonable
32 B The fixation of price would be in the interest of consumers rather than that of the producers
Moreover since the petitioners were allowed to sell freely at any rate they liked the remaining 50 of sugar after excluding the 50 which they had to give to levey as also the produce by the second and third processes the loss if any caused to the petitioners would be minimal
32 G