Case: Ch. Tika Ramji &amp; Others, Etc Vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Others

2. The petitioners are sugarcane growers in the several villages of the Districts of Meerut, Kheri, Gorakhpur and Deoria in the State of U. P. numbering 4724 in the aggregate. Associated with them are the President, theand the Secretary of an association which is styled "the Ganna Utpadak Sangh" which is a rival body to theDevelopment Unions established and recognised under the impugned Act. The notification datedissued in exercise of the powers conferred by(1) (a) read with(2) (b) of S. 16 of the impugned Act ordered that where not less than 3/4 of the cane growers of the area of operation of a Cane GrowersSociety members of the Society, the occupier, of the factory for which the area is assigned shall not purchase or enter into agreement to purchase cane grown by a cane grower except through such Cane GrowersSociety. The notification dateded in exercise of the powers conferred byS. 15 of the impugned Act and reserved or assigned to the sugar factories mentioned in col. 2 of the Schedule annexed thereto the cane purchasing centers (with the authorities attached to them) specified against them in col. 3 for the purpose of supply of sugarcane during the crushing seasonsubject to the conditions and explanations given therein. The former relates to the agency of supply of sugarcane to the factories and the latter relates to the creation of zones for particular factories. All the petitions except Nos. 10 of 1956 and 37 of 1956 impugn the former notification but the grounds of attack against both are common. The impugned Act is challenged asultra viresthe power of the State Legislature, theof the Act being within the exclusive field of Parliament and also as being repugnant to Act 65 of 1951 and Act 10 of 1955 passed by Parliament, and S. 15 and S. 16 (1) (a) and (2) (b) and the notifications issued fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 14, Art. 19 (1) (c) (f) and (g) and Art. 31 besides being in violation of Art. 301 of the Constitution. All these petitions involve common questions of law and may be disposed of by one judgment.3. A short history of the legislation enacted by the Centre as well as the Province of U. P. in regard to sugar and sugarcane will be helpful for the determination of the questions arising in these petitions. Onthe Central Legislature passed the Sugar Industry (Protection) Act, 1932 (Act 13 of 1932) to provide for the fostering and development of Sugar Industry in India in pursuance of the policy of discriminating protection of industries with due regard to the well being of the community. As a result of the protection thus granted to the sugar industry, the number of sugar factories which was 31 prior thereto registered a rapid rise any by 1938 they were 139 in number. There was also a large expansion in the cultivation of sugarcane and millions of cultivators in the Province of U. P. took to growing sugarcane. In order to protect their interest and for the purchase of assuring to them a fair price for their produce, the Central Legislature enacted onthe Sugarcane Act, 1934 (Act 15 of 1934) to regulate the price at which sugarcane intended to be used in the manufacture of sugar might be purchased by or for factories. Sugarcane was grown in various Provinces and the declaration of controlled areas and the fixing of minimum price for the purchase of sugarcane intended for use in any factory in any controlled area was of necessity left to the Provincial Governments and the Provincial Governments were also empowered to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the objects of the Act including, in particular, the organisation of growers of sugarcane intoSocieties for the sale of sugarcane to factories.4. With the coming into operation of the Government of India Act, 1935, there was a distribution of legislative powers between the Dominion Legislature and the Provincial Legislatures and agriculture (Entry No. 20), trade and commerce within the Province (Entry No. 27) and production, supply and distribution of goods, development of industries subject to the provision in List 1 with respect to development of certain industries under Dominion control (Entry No. 29) were included in List 2, the Provincial Legislative List. The relevant provision in List 1 was contained in Entry No. 34 : "Development of industries where development under Dominion control is declared to be in the public interest." As a result of this distribution of legislative powers, the entireof Act 15 of 1934 fell within the Provincial Legislative List. It was felt that Act 15 of 1934 was not sufficiently comprehensive for dealing with the problems of the sugar industry and it was found necessary to replace it by a new measure which would provide for better organisation of cane supplies to sugar factories. The Governments of U. P. and Bihar, therefore, decided in consultation with each other to introduce legislation on similar lines for both the Provinces which together accounted for nearly 85 per cent of production of sugar in India. The U. P. Legislature accordingly enacted onthe U. P. Sugar Factories Control Act, 1938 (U. P. Act 1 of 1938) to provide for the licensing of the sugar factories and for regulating the supply of sugarcane intended for use in such factories and the price at which it may be purchased and for other incidental matters. This Act provided for (a) the licensing of sugar factories, (b) the regulation of the supply of sugarcane to factories, (c) the minimum price for sugarcane, (d) the establishment of Sugar Control Board of Advisory Committee, and (e) a tax on the sale of sugarcane intended for use in factories, and repealed Act 15 of 1934. This Act was to remain in force initially untilbut the period was extended toby U. P. Act 13 of 1947 and toby U. P. Act 21 of 1950.

Reasoning:
15. Re. (1) : This contention relates to the legislative competence of the U. P. State Legislature to enact the impugned Act. It was contended that, even though the impugned Act purported to legislate in regard to sugarcane required for use in sugar factories, it was, in pith and substance, and in its true nature and effect legislation in regard to sugar industry which had been declared by Act 65 of 1951 to be an industry the control of which by the Union was expedient in the public interest and was, therefore, within the exclusive province of Parliament under Entry 52 of List 1. The word industry, it was contended, was a word of very wide import and included not only the process of manufacture of production but also all things which were necessarily incidental to it, viz., the raw materials for the industry as also the products of that industry and would, therefore, include within its connotation the production, supply and distribution of raw materials for that industry which means sugarcane in relation to sugar industry. It was also contended that in so far as the impugned Act purported to legislate in regard to sugarcane which was a necessary ingredient in the production of sugar it was a colourable exercise of legislative power by the State, ostensibly operating in its own field within Entry 27 of List 2 but really trespassing upon the field of Entry 52 of List 1.Our attention was drawn in this connection to the definition of industry in S. 2 (j), Industries Disputes Act,. 1947 (Act 14 to 1947) : "Industry" means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling service, employment handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen." and also to the wide construction which was put upon the term industry in theAustralian Insurance Staffs Federation v. Accident Underwriters Association, (1923) 33 CLR 517(D) where it was construed to include "all forms of employment in which large number of persons are employed, the sudden cessation of whose work might prejudicially affect the orderly conduct of the orderly operations of civil life." A similarly wide interpretation was put on the work industry by our Court in D. N. Banerji v. P. R. Mukherjee, 1953 SCR 302   : (AIR 153 SC 58) (E) where the dispute was between a Municipality and its employees. These interpretations of the term industry, however do not help us because in defining the work industry in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as also in putting the wide construction on the term industry in (1923) 33 CLR 517 (D), as well as 1953 SCR 302   : (AIR 1953 (E), they were concerned mainly with the question whether an industrial dispute arose between employers and employees. Whether a particular concern came within the definition of an employer was determined with respect to the criterion ultimately adopted which was that the sudden cessation of such work might prejudicially affect the orderly conduct of the ordinary operations of civil life and the withdrawal of service would be detrimental to the industrial system of the community and might result in its dislocation. What we are concerned with here is not the wide construction to be put on the term industry as such but whether the raw materials of an industry which form an integral part of the process are within the topic of industry which forms theof Item 52 of List 1 as ancillary or subsidiary matters which can fairly or reasonable be said to be comprehended in that topic and whether the central legislature while legislating upon sugar industry could, acting within the sphere of entry 52 of list 1, as well legislate upon sugarcane.21. If both the Central Legislature and the Provincial Legislature were entitled to legislate in regard to this subject of production, supply and distribution of sugarcane, there would arise no question of legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature in the matter of having enacted the impugned Act. The conflict, if any, arose by reason of the interpretation which was sought to be put on the two Entries, Entry 52 of List 1 and Entry 27 of List of 2 put in juxtaposition with each other. It was suggested that Item 52 of List 1 comprised not only legislation in regard to sugar industry but also in regard to sugarcane which was an essential ingredient of the industrial process of the manufacture or production of sugar and was, therefore, ancillary to it and was covered within the topic. If legislation with regard to sugarcane thus came within the exclusive province of the Central Legislature the Provincial Legislature was not entitled to legislate upon the same by having resort to Entry 27 of List 2 the impugned Act was, therefore,ultra viresthe Provincial Legislature. There was an apparent conflict between the legislative powers of the centre and of the Provinces in this respect which conflict could not have been intended and, therefore, a reconciliation was to be attempted by reading the two provisions together and by interpreting and where necessary modifying the language of one by that of the other. Reliance was placed on the observations of the Judicial Committee in TheIn the instant case, there is no question of any inconsistency in the actual terms of the Acts enacted by Parliament and the impugned Act. The only questions that arise are whether Parliament and the State Legislature sought to exercise their powers over the sameor whether the laws enacted by Parliament were intended to be a complete exhaustive code or, in other words, expressly or impliedly evinced an intention to cover, the whole field. It would be necessary, therefore, to compare the provisions of Act 65 of 1951 as amended by Act 26 of 1953, Act 10 of 1955 and the Sugar Control Order, 1955 issued thereunder with those of the impugned Act and U. P. Sugarcane Regulation of Supply and Purchase Order, 1954 passedattention was drawn to the several provisions contained in the Sugarcane Control Order 1955 and the U. P. Sugarcane Regulation of Supply and Purchase Order 1954 and the agreements annexed thereto and it was pointed out that they differed in material particulars the provisions of the latter being more stringent than those of the former. It is not necessary to refer to these provisions in any detail. Suffice it to say that none of these provisions do overlap the centre being silent with regard to some of the provisions which have been enacted by the State and the State being silent with regard to some of the provisions which have been enacted by the centre. There is no repugnancy whatever between these provisions and the impugned Act and the rules framed thereunder as also the U. P. Sugarcane Regulation of Supply and Purchase Order, 1954 do not trench upon the field covered by Act 10 of 1955. There being no repugnancy at all, therefore no question arises of the operation of Art. 254 (2) of the Constitution and no provision of the impugned Act and the rule made thereunder is invalidated by any provision contained in Act 65 of 1951 as amended by Act 26 of 1953 or Act 10 of 1955 and the Sugarcane Control Order, 1955 issued thereunder.37. Re. (3) : ItAs regards S. 16 of Act 10 of 1955, the validity and effect thereof depends upon the construction to be put on Art. 254 (2) and the proviso thereto. Article 254 (2) deals with repugnancy between the provisions of a law made by the State Legislature, and those of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List and provides that the law so made by the State Legislature shall if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in the State. A proviso, however, has been attached thereto which says that "nothing in Art. 254 (2) shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the State Legislature." Ordinarily Parliament would not have the power to repeal a law passed by the State Legislature even though it be a law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List. Section 107, Government of India Act. 1935 did not contain any such powers. As was observed by the Court inZaverbhai Amaidas v. The State of Bombay, (1955) I SCR 799 at p. 806 : (AIR 1954 SC 752   at p. 756) (U), this provision contained in Art. 254in substance, a reproduction of S. 107 (2), Government of India Act, 1935, the concluding portion whereof being incorporated in a proviso with further additions. Discussing the nature of the power of the Dominion Legislature, Canada, in relation to that of Provincial Legislature, in a situation similar so that under S. 107 (2), Government of India Act, it was observed by Lord Watson in 1896 AC 348 (t), that though a law enacted by the Parliament of Canada and within its competence would override Provincial Legislation covering the same field, the Dominion Parliament had no authority conferred upon it under the Constitution to enact a statute repealing directly any Provincial statute. That would appear to have been the position under S. 107 (2), Government of India Act with reference to the subjects mentioned in the Concurrent List. Now, by the proviso to Art, 254 (2) the Constitution has enlarged the powers of Parliament, and under that provisio, Parliament can do what the Central Legislature could not under S. 107 (2) of the Government of India Act, and enact a law adding to, amending varying or repealing a law of the State, when it relates to a matter mentioned in the Concurrent List, The position then is that under the Constitution Parliament can, acting under the proviso to Art. 254 (2), repeal a State law.It is argued for the State of U. P. that, under the proviso to Art. 254 (2), the power to repeal a law passed by the State Legislature is incidental to enacting a law relating to the same matter as is dealt with in the State legislation, and that a statute which merely repeals a law passed by the State Legislature without enacting substantive provisions on the subject would not be within the proviso, as it could not have been the intention of the Constitution that in a topic within the concurrent sphere of legislation there should be a vacuum. There is considerable force in this contention, and there is much to be said for the view that a repeal simpliciter is not within the proviso. But it is unnecessary to base out decision on this point, as the petitioners must, in our opinion, fail on another ground. While the proviso to Art. 254(2) does confer on Parliament a power to repeal a law passed by the State Legislature, that power is, under the terms of the proviso, subject to certain limitations, It is limited to enacting a law with respect to the same matter adding to, amending, varying or repealing a "law so made by the State Legislature."The law referred to here is the law mentioned in the body of Art. 254 (2). It is a law made by the State Legislature with reference to a matter in the Concurrent List containing provisions repugnant to an earlier law made by Parliament and with the consent of the President. It is only such a law that could be altered, amended or repealed under the proviso. The impugned Act is not a law relating to any matter, which is the subject of an earlier legislation by Parliament. It is a substantive law covering a field not occupied by Parliament, and no question of its containing any provisions inconsistent with a law enacted by Parliament could therefore arise. To such a law, the proviso has no application and S. 16 (1)(b) of Act 10 of 1955 and cl. 7 (1) of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1955 must, in this view, be held to be void.41. There is also a further objection to which cl. 7(1) of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1955 is open. The power of repeal, if any, was vested in Parliament and Parliament alone could exercise it by enacting an appropriate provision in regard thereto. Parliament could not delegate this power of repeal to any executive authority Such delegation, if made, would be void and the Central Government had no power, therefore, to repeal any order made by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by S. 16 of the impugned Act. The U. P. Sugarcane Regulation of Supply and Purchase Order, 1954, could not, therefore, be validly repealed by the Central Government as was purported to be done by cl. 7 of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1955, and that repeal was of no effect with the result that the U. P. Sugarcane Regulation of Supply and Purchase Order, 1954 stood unaffected thereby. The result therefore, is that there was no repeal of the impugned Act or the U. P. Sugarcane Regulation of Supply and Purchase Order, 1954 by S. 16 of Act 10 of 1955 or by Cl. 7 of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1955 as contended by the petitioners.It will be thus seen that the powers given to the Cane Commissioner under S. 15 are well defined and have got to be exercised within the limits prescribed after consulting the factories and the CanegrowersSocieties (vide S. 15) (1) and any order made by the Cane Commissioner thereunder is liable to an appeal to the State Government at the instance of the party aggrieved (vide S. 15 (4).The same is the position in regard to the orders made by the Cane Commissioner in the course of his management and supervision of the CanegrowersSocieties and any order made by him in regard thereto is subject to appeal to the State Government at the instance of the party aggrieved (vide R. 63). If this is the position, it cannot be urged that wide powers are conferred on the Cane Commissioner which can be used by him in a discriminatory manner so as to violate the fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 14.Anyor a CanegrowersSociety or the occupier of a factory can, if aggrieved, take an appeal to the State Government against any order passed by the Cane Commissioner and such provision is a sufficient safeguard provided in the Act and the Rules against any arbitrary exercise of those powers by the Cane Commissioner and takes them out of the ban of Art. 14.There is also another fallacy in their argument and it lies in ignoring that no canegrower is prevented from resigning his membership of a CanegrowersSociety. These are voluntary organisations which a canegrower is entitled to join or not at his choice.If he has once joined it he is also entitled or resign his membership at his choice and the only obstacle to his right of resignation, as has been laid down in the byelaws of the Society, is the fact of his being indebted to the Society, or the fact of his being a surety for debt due by another member of the Society. Until these debts are discharged and also until the crushing season during which the CanegrowersSociety has entered into an agreement with the occupier of a factory is over, a member of a Society cannot resign his membership. These restrictions do not fetter his right to resign his membership of the Society. If he became a member of the Society he is bound by theof the Society and can only resign his membership after fulfilling all the conditions which are laid down in theSociety.50. The cane grower, moreover, is not prevented absolutely from selling his sugarcane. The only person to whom he cannot sell his sugarcane is the owner of a factory but does not prevent him from selling his sugarcane to any other person or for any other purpose e.g. the manufacture or production of gur or rab or khandsari or any variety of product other than sugar. There may be of course difficulties in the matter of his being able to sell the same in that manner but that does not mean that there is an absolute restriction on his power of disposal of his goods unless and until he becomes a member of a CanegrowresSociety. He is at perfect liberty not to become a member of a CanegrowersSociety if he chooses not to do so and no power on earth can compel him to become such a member. Just as he is not bound to become a member of a Cane growers Cooperative Society he is equally not bound to offer his sugarcane for sale to the occupier of a factory even if he happens to be a cane grower within the area reserved for that factory. His freedom in that behalf is absolutely unrestricted and we do not see how it can be urged that the provisions of the impugned Act and the notification datedare violative of his fundamental right under Art 19 (1) (c) : of the1. These petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution impugn the validity of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 (U. P. Act 24 of 1953 of 1953) hereinafter called the impugned Act and the notifications dated55 issued by the U.P. Government thereunder.The petitioners are sugarcane growers in the several villages of the Districts of Meerut, Kheri, Gorakhpur and Deoria in the State of U. P. numbering 4724 in the aggregate. Associated with them are the President, theand the Secretary of an association which is styled "the Ganna Utpadak Sangh" which is a rival body to thet Unions established and recognised under the impugned Act. The notification datedd in exercise of the powers conferred by(1) (a) read with(2) (b) of S. 16 of the impugned Act ordered that where not less than 3/4 of the cane growers of the area of operation of a Cane Growersy members of the Society, the occupier, of the factory for which the area is assigned shall not purchase or enter into agreement to purchase cane grown by a cane grower except through such Cane GrowersSociety. The notification dateded in exercise of thepowers conferred by S.15 of the impugned Act and reserved or assigned to the sugar factories mentioned in col. 2 of the Schedule annexed thereto the cane purchasing centers (with the authorities attached to them) specified against them in col. 3 for the purpose of supply of sugarcane during the crushing seasonsubject to the conditions and explanations given therein. The former relates to the agency of supply of sugarcane to the factories and the latter relates to the creation of zones for particular factories. All the petitions except Nos. 10 of 1956 and 37 of 1956 impugn the former notification but the grounds of attack against both are common. The impugned Act is challenged asultra viresthe power of the State Legislature, theof the Act being within the exclusive field of Parliament and also as being repugnant to Act 65 of 1951 and Act 10 of 1955 passed by Parliament, and S. 15 and S. 16 (1) (a) and (2) (b) and the notifications issued fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 14, Art. 19 (1) (c) (f) and (g) and Art. 31 besides being in violation of Art. 301 of the Constitution. All these petitions involve common questions of law and may be disposed of by one judgment.3. A short history of the legislation enacted by the Centre as well as the Province of U. P. in regard to sugar and sugarcane will be helpful for the determination of the questions arising in these petitions. Onthe Central Legislature passed the Sugar Industry (Protection) Act, 1932 (Act 13 of 1932) to provide for the fostering and development of Sugar Industry in India in pursuance of the policy of discriminating protection of industries with due regard to the well being of the community. As a result of the protection thus granted to the sugar industry, the number of sugar factories which was 31 prior thereto registered a rapid rise any by 1938 they were 139 in number. There was also a large expansion in the cultivation of sugarcane and millions of cultivators in the Province of U. P. took to growing sugarcane. In order to protect their interest and for the purchase of assuring to them a fair price for their produce, the Central Legislature enacted onthe Sugarcane Act, 1934 (Act 15 of 1934) to regulate the price at which sugarcane intended to be used in the manufacture of sugar might be purchased by or for factories. Sugarcane was grown in various Provinces and the declaration of controlled areas and the fixing of minimum price for the purchase of sugarcane intended for use in any factory in any controlled area was of necessity left to the Provincial Governments and the Provincial Governments were also empowered to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the objects of the Act including, in particular, the organisation of growers of sugarcane intoSocieties for the sale of sugarcane to factories.4. With the coming into operation of the Government of India Act, 1935, there was a distribution of legislative powers between the Dominion Legislature and the Provincial Legislatures and agriculture (Entry No. 20), trade and commerce within the Province (Entry No. 27) and production, supply and distribution of goods, development of industries subject to the provision in List 1 with respect to development of certain industries under Dominion control (Entry No. 29) were included in List 2, the Provincial Legislative List. The relevant provision in List 1 was contained in Entry No. 34 : "Development of industries where development under Dominion control is declared to be in the public interest." As a result of this distribution of legislative powers, the entireof Act 15 of 1934 fell within the Provincial Legislative List. It was felt that Act 15 of 1934 was not sufficiently comprehensive for dealing with the problems of the sugar industry and it was found necessary to replace it by a new measure which would provide for better organisation of cane supplies to sugar factories. The Governments of U. P. and Bihar, therefore, decided in consultation with each other to introduce legislation on similar lines for both the Provinces which together accounted for nearly 85 per cent of production of sugar in India. The U. P. Legislature accordingly enacted onthe U. P. Sugar Factories Control Act, 1938 (U. P. Act 1 of 1938) to provide for the licensing of the sugar factories and for regulating the supply of sugarcane intended for use in such factories and the price at which it may be purchased and for other incidental matters. This Act provided for (a) the licensing of sugar factories, (b) the regulation of the supply of sugarcane to factories, (c) the minimum price for sugarcane, (d) the establishment of Sugar Control Board of Advisory Committee, and (e) a tax on the sale of sugarcane intended for use in factories, and repealed Act 15 of 1934. This Act was to remain in force initially untilbut the period was extended toy U. P. Act 13 of 1947 and toy U. P. Act 21 of 1950.The Second World War intervened and an emergency was proclaimed by theunder S. 102, Government of India Act 1935. The Dominion Legislature acquired the power to make laws for the Provinces with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the Provincial Legislative List. The result was in effect to make the Provincial Legislative List also a Concurrent Legislative List for the operation of the Dominion Legislature but if any provision of a Provincial law was repugnant to any provision of the Dominion law made in exercise of that power, the Dominion law was to prevail and the Provincial law was to be void to the extent of the repugnancy. The proclamation of emergency was to operate until revoked by a subsequent proclamation and laws made by the Dominion Legislature as above were to have effect until the expiration of period of six months after the proclamation had ceased to operate. The Defence of India Act and the Rules made thereunder occupied the field, sugar was made a controlled commodity in the year 1942 and its production and distribution as well as the fixation of sugar prices were regulated by the Sugar Controller thereafter. The proclamation of emergency was revoked onand the laws made by the Dominion Legislature in the field of the Provincial Legislative List were to cease to have effect after6, the British Parliament enacted the India (Central Government and Legislature) Act, 1946 (9 and 10 Geo. 6, Chapter 39). Section 2 (1) (a) provided that notwithstanding anything in the Government of India Act, 1935, the Indian Legislature shall during the period mentioned in S. 4 of the Act have power to make laws with respect to the following matterstrade and commerce (whether or not within a Province) in, and the production, supply and distribution of cotton andpaper (including newsprint), foodstuffs (including edible oil seeds and oils), petroleum and petroleum products, spare parts of mechanically propelled vehicles coal, iron, steel andperiod provided in S. 4 was the period of onewith the date on which the proclamation of emergency ceased to operate or, if theby a public notification directed, a period of 2 years beginning with that date. There was a proviso to that section that if and so often as a resolution approving the extension of the said period was passed by both Houses of Parliament, the same period shall be extended for a further period of 12 months from the date on which it would otherwise expire but it was not to continue in any case for more than 5 years from the date on which the proclamation of emergency ceased to operate.6. Acting under the power reserved to it under S. 2 (1) (a) aforesaid, the Central Legislature enacted onthe Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 (Act 24 of 1946) to provide for the continuance during the limited period of powers to control production supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce in, certain commodities. Section 1 (3) of the Act provided that it shall cease to have effect on the expiration of the period mentioned in S. 4. India (Central Government and Legislature) Act, 1946. In the absence of a notification by thethe Act remained operative untilal, however, issued a notification oncontinuing its force for a period of two years from the date of the cessation of emergency. By virtue of this notification, the Act would have remained in force till7, the India Independence Act was passed and India became a Dominion onUnder S. 9 read with S. 19(4), Indian Independence Act, 1947, thepassed an order onwhich substituted the words "Dominion Legislature" for "Both Houses of Parliament" in the proviso to S. 4, India (Central Government and Legislature) Act, 1946 and also introduced a new S. 4 (a) by way of adaptation providing that the powers of the Dominion Legislature shall be exercised by the Constituent Assembly. Onthe Constituent Assembly passed its first Resolution extending the operation of the Act for one year up to9, a second Resolution was passed by the Assembly extending the life of the Act by one year more up toWith the advent of our Constitution onParliament was invested under Art. 369 with power for a period of 5 years from the commencement of the Constitution to make laws with respect to the following matters as if they were enumerated in the Concurrent Listtrade and commerce within a State in, and the production, supply and distribution of ........ foodstuffs (including edible oil seeds and oil),life of the Act was accordingly extended for time to time up toby Acts passed by Parliament.7. Act 24 of 1946 defined an essential commodity to mean any of the following classes of commodities :"(1) Foodstuffs, ........"Food crops were defined as including crops of sugarcane.Section 3 of the Act empowered the Central Government, so far as it appeared to it to be necessary expedient for maintaining or increasing the supply of any essential commodity or for securing its equitable distribution and availability as fair prices to provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein. Onthe Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by S. 3 of the Act, promulgated the Sugar and Gur Control Order, 1950,inter aliaempowering it to prohibit or to restrict the export of sugarcane from any area, to direct that no gur or sugar shall be manufactured from sugarcane except under and in accordance with the conditions specified in the licence issued in this behalf and to prohibit or to restrict the despatch of gur or sugar from any State or any area therein. Power was also given to fix minimum price of sugarcane and no person was to sell or agree to sell sugarcane to a producer and no producer was to purchase or agree to purchase sugarcane at a price lower than that notified thereunder. This power of fixing the price of sugarcane was exercised by the Central Government from time to time by issuing notifications fixing the minimum prices to be paid by the producers of sugar by vacuum pan process or their agents for sugarcane purchased by them during thecrushing season in various States including U. P.8. OnParliament enacted the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (Act 65 of 1951) to provide for the development and regulation of certain industries. By S. 2 of the Act it was declared that it was expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the industries specified in the First Schedule which included in item 8 thereof the industry engaged in the manufacture or production of sugar.9. The Province of Bihar which, along with U. P. contributed to nearly 85 per cent. of production of sugar in India had also on its Statute Book the Bihar Sugar Factories Control Act 7 to 1937. Ona joint meeting of the U. P. and the Bihar Sugar Control Boards was held at which it was resolved that a Committee be appointed to enquire into the working of the sugarcane rules and labour conditions prevailing in the sugar factories in the two Provinces. The Government of the U. P. and Bihar accepted this recommendation of the Sugar Control Boards and accordingly appointed the Khaitan Committee, (1) to examine the working of the sugarcane rules, (2) to look into the complaints of malpractices received from time to time in connection with the supply of sugarcane to the sugar factories, (3) to enquire into the labour conditions of the sugar factories, and (4) to suggest remedical measure for the shortcomings as noted in (1), (2) and (3) above. Shibban Lal Sexena, the present President of the Ganna Utpadak Sangh and one of the petitioners before us was also a member of that Committee. That Committee submitted its Report in 1940 recommendinginter aliaabolition of the dual system of supply and creation of a strongorganisation of the sugarcane growers themselves as also creation of a zonal system. The Indian Tariff Board had also, in the meanwhile, made its Report on the sugar industry in the year 1938 commending the advantages of a zonal system. There was further the report of the U. P. Sugar Industry Enquiry Committee, 1951 called the Swaminathan Committee, which also recommended the abolition of dual agencies of cane supplied to factories and commended the desirability of employing the agency of theSocieties for the purpose. It also recommended that the U. P. Act 1 of 1938 should be amended in order to make this regulation possible. Act 65 of 1951 was brought into force with effect fromIn view of the same, certain provisions of U. P. Act 1 of 1938 became inoperative. The U. P. Legislature, therefore, passed onthe U. P. Sugar Factories Control (Amendment) Act, 1952, deleting those provisions and putting the amended Act permanently on the Statute Book. The U. P. Act 1 of 1938, as thus amended, continued in force till, as a result of the prior enactment of Act 65 of 1951 and the report of the Indian Tariff Board on the Sugar Industry as well as the reports of the Khaitan Committee and Swaminathan Committee mentioned above, the U. P. Legislature enacted the impugned Act. The object of the enactment was stated to be as followsthe promulgation of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 with effect fromthe regulation of the sugar industry has become exclusively a Central subject. The State Governments are now only concerned with the supply of sugarcane to the sugar factories. The Bill is being introduced in order to provide for a rational distribution of sugarcane to factories, for its development on organised scientific lines, to protect the interests of the cane growers and of the industry and to put the new Act permanently on the Statute Book"(vide Statement of Objects and Reasons published in the U. P. Gazette Extraordinary datedis the impugned Act the vires of which is challenged in the petitions. In exercise of thepower conferred by S. 28 of the Act, the U. P. Government made the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation to Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954. The U. P. Government also, in exercise of thepowers conferred by S.16 of the Act, promulgated the U. P. Sugarcane supply and Purchase Order, 1954, which came into effect fromAll these related to the supply and purchase of sugarcane in U. P.10. Act 65 of 1951 was amended by Act 26 of 1953 which, by adding Chapter 3 (b), invested the Central Governmentinter aliawith power so far as it appeared to it necessary or expedient for securing the equitable distribution and availability at fair prices of any article or class of articles relatable to any scheduled industry to provide by notified order for regulation of supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein.11. OnParliament enacted the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Act 10 of 1955) to provide in the interests of the general public for the control of production, supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce in, certain commodities. The essential commodity there was defined to mean any of the following classes of commoditiesfoodstuffs, including edible oilseeds and oils;..............(xi) any other class of commodity which the Central Government may, by notified order declare to be an essential commodity for the purpose of this Act, being a commodity with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws by virtue of Entry 33 in List 3 in the Seventh Schedule to thewere defined as inclusive of crops of sugarcane. Section 3 (1) empowered the Central Government, if it was of the opinion that it was necessary or expedient to do so for maintaining or increasing the supply of any essential commodity or for securing its equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, to provide by order for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein.Section 3 (2) (b)inter aliaprovided for the making of such an order for bringing under cultivation any waste or arable land whether appurtenant to a building or not, for the growing thereon of foodcrops generally or of specified foodcrops. Section 16 of the Act repealed (a) the Essential Commodities Ordinance 1955, and (b) any other law in force in any State immediately before the commencement of the Act in so far as such law controlled or authorised the control of the production, supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce in, any essential commodity.12. It exercise of thepowers conferred by S.3 of the Act, the Central Government promulgated onthe Sugar Control Order, 1955 and the Sugarcane Control Order, 1955. The latter empowered the Central Government, after consultation with such authorities, bodies or associations as it may deem fit by notification in the official Gazette from to time, to fix the price of sugarcane and direct payment thereof and also to regulate the movement of sugarcane.The power to regulate the movement of sugarcane comprised the power to prohibit or restrict or otherwise regulate the export of sugarcane from any area for supply to different factories and the power to direct that no gur (jaggery) or sugar shall be manufactured from sugarcane except under and in accordance with the conditions specified in a licence issued in this behalf. Clause 7 of this Order provided that the Sugar and Gur Control Order, 1950, published by the Government of India in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, S.R.O. 735 datedand any order made by a State Government or other authority regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution of sugarcane and trade or commerce therein were thereby repealed as respect to things done or omitted to be done under any such order before commencement of the order.13. These are the respective Acts and Notifications passed by the Centre as well as the State of U. P. in regard to sugar and sugarcane.Learned counsel for the petitioners urged before us :(1) that the State of U. P. had no power to enact the impugned Act as the Act is with respect to the subject of industries the control of which by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the pubic interest within the meaning of Entry 52 of List 1 and is therefore, within the exclusive province of Parliament. The impugned Act is, therefore,ultra viresthe powers of the State Legislature and is a colourable exercise of Legislative power by the Statethe impugned Act is repugnant to Act 65 of 1951 and Act 10 of 1955 and in the event of the Court holding that the impugned Act was within the legislative competence of the State legislature, it is void by reason of such repugnancy;(3) the impugned Act stands repealed to the extent that it has been repealed by S. 16 of Act 10 of 1955 and by Cl. 7 of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1955 made in exercise of thepowers conferred by S.3 of Act 10 of 1955;(4) the impugned Act infringes the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 14 inasmuch as very wide powers are given to the Cane Commissioner which can be used in a discriminatory manner ;(5) the impugned Act and the notification datedviolate the fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (c) in that the