Case: Ram Chandra Mawa Lal and Others Etc Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Etc


Decision reasoning: 1[ds]There is no question of placing the later law, Defence of India Act, 1971, for consideration by the President under Article 254(2) of the Constitution for both the laws, the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Defence of India Act, 1971 are laws passed by Parliament. There does not appear t o be any provision for placing any notification made by a State Government under the Defence of India Rules, 1971 for consideration by the President. As already stated, if the impugned State Governments notification is, however, considered to be in the nature of a State law there is nothing on the record, to show that it was placed before the President for consideration and had received his assent as alreadyupon the above decision in Zaverbhai Amaidas v. The St ate of Bombay (supra) Mr. Manchanda made a half- hearted plea that the impugned State Governments notification relates only to fertilizer which was carried over from the stock held at the close of 31.5.1974 and that it is intended to protect agricultural consumers from dealers making undue profit and should therefore, be held to be, valid in law. It is not possible to accept this submission of Mr. Manchanda. There is no basis, whatsoever, to presume, and it will, be totally uncharitable to the Central Government to presume, that the Central Government which had assumed powers under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to control the distribution of fertilizer and make it available at fair prices to consumers was ignorant of or had overlooked the fact while making the notification dated 1.6.1974 fixing a higher price for dealers to sell fertilizer to consumers with effect from that date that there may be some stock of fertilizer on 31.5.1974 pur chased by dealers at lower prices which may be carried over for sale subsequently. What has been done by the State Government under the impugned notification is utterly lacking in power and cannot be allowed to stand merely because it relates only to a comparatively small quantity of fertilizer carried over from the stock of 31.5.1974 and was intended to benefit and protect agricultural consumers and prevent dealers from making undue profits. For the reasons stated above the appeals are allowed and the impugned State Governments notification dated 14.6.1974 is quashed. There will be an order directing the District Agricultural officers and other District Authorities in the State of Uttar Pradesh not to ask the dealers to refund the excess in respect of the sales completed prior to the date of the impugned notification. The District Magistrates concerned shall return the monies deposited with them by the dealers pursuant to this Courts orders dated 2.9.1974 and 30.10.1974. The respondents shall pay the appellants costs. There will be one set of advocates fees in the batch of appeals in which the appellants are represented by Mr. Govindan Nair and another set of advocates fees in the other set of appeals in which Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad appears for the appellants.on the above decision in Zaverbhai Amaidas v. The St ate of Bombay (supra) Mr. Manchanda made a halfhearted plea that the impugned State Governments notification relates only to fertilizer which was carried over from the stock held at the close of 31.5.1974 and that it is intended to protect agricultural consumers from dealers making undue profit and should therefore, be held to be, valid in law. It is not possible to accept this submission of Mr. Manchanda. There is no basis, whatsoever, to presume, and it will, be totally uncharitable to the Central Government to presume, that the Central Government which had assumed powers under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to control the distribution of fertilizer and make it available at fair prices to consumers was ignorant of or had overlooked the fact while making the notification dated 1.6.1974 fixing a higher price for dealers to sell fertilizer to consumers with effect from that date that there may be some stock of fertilizer on 31.5.1974 pur chased by dealers at lower prices which may be carried over for sale subsequently. What has been done by the State Government under the impugned notification is utterly lacking in power and cannot be allowed to stand merely because it relates only to a comparatively small quantity of fertilizer carried over from the stock of 31.5.1974 and was intended to benefit and protect agricultural consumers and prevent dealers from making undue profits.