Case: Sat Pal Gupta &amp; Anr Vs. State Of Haryana &amp; Anr

The appellants, in this appeal by special leave, are dealers in rice, paddy and rice bran. They also have an associate rice milling and husking plant which is run under the name and style of Jagdamba Rice Mills,3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 10 of 1955, empowers the Central Government, under the circumstances stated in that section, to issue notified orders providing for the regulation of production, supply and distribution of any essential commodity. Under Section 5, the Central Government can delegate its powers to a State Government or an officer or authority subordinate to it. In exercise of that power, the Central Government issued a notification on July 24, 1967 delegating to the State Governments the power conferred upon it by Section 3 of the Act. In exercise of such delegated power, Respondent 1, the State of Haryana, promulgated the Haryana Rice Bran (Distribution and Price) Control Order, 1967. Clause 3 of the said Order provides that no dealer or owner of a rice mill shall sell or offer to sell or supply rice bran save against a permit granted by the Director, Food and Supplies, or the District Magistrate or any other officer authorised by the Director in that behalf. The appellant s filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, challenging clause 3 of the aforesaid Control Order, on the ground that rice bran is not an essential commodity and therefore, the power conferred by section 3 of the Act cannot be exercised for the purpose of regulating its sale or supply. This contention has been negatived by the High Court.

Court's reasoning:
It is true that the power conferred by section 3(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, can be exercised by the Central Government or its delegate, only if it is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to provide for the regulation of any `essential commodity. The only sub- clauses of section 2(a) which a re relevant for the purpose of decidingrice bran isy, are sub-clauses (i) and (v). Sub-clause (i) of section 2(a) defines an `essential commodity to mean "cattle fodder, including oil-cakes and other concentrates" . By sub-clause (v), an `essential commodity means "foodstuffs including edible oil-seeds and oils". Ifrice bran iseither cattle fodder or foodstuff, it would be an essential commodity and the Central Government or its delegate, the St ate Government, would have the power to regulate its production, supply and distribution, and trade and commerce therein.Coming first to the question argued by Shri Maheshwari as to whetherrice bran is`foodstuff, it is well known that rice b ran is commonly used as poultry feed and not uncommonly as cattle feed. This is undisputed. Rice bran is a bye-product of the husking and milling process of paddy and consists of the layer which lies between the husk and the kernel. The affidavit of Shri T.K. Banerji, Director, Food and Supplies, Haryana which was filed in the High Court shows thatrice bran isused in place of wheat bran or wheat middlings in livestock feeding. To the same effect is the affidavit filed in this Court by Shri H.D. Bansal, Director, Food and Supplies, Haryana. If this is the true position, we are unable to appreciate that rice bran cannot be considered to be a foodstuff. Any stuff which is commonly used as food by the generality of living beings is foodstuff: it is not legitimate to restrict the meaning of that word to things which are used as food by human beings. The animal kingdom is not any the less important in the cosmic scheme than the human empire and it is a distortion to say that it is a matter of little or no concern to the State whetherthe cattle and the poultry get their due ration of the means of their subsistence.Cattle feed and poultry feed are food to the cattle and the poultry, and therefore they areare therefore of the opinion that rice bran being a foodstuff within the meaning of section 2(a)(v) of the Act, it is an essential commodity and therefore, the power conferred by section 3 can be used to regulate its production, sale oraffidavits filed on behalf of the State of Haryana have attempted to make out a case thatrice bran isused for human consumption. A research bulletin brought out by the Department of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Punjab University, Chandigarh, is cited therein as showing that the oil extracted from rice bran can be used in a variety of ways in the edible field as, for example, for fat-frying, cooking and in the preparation of salads and sauces, and that in Japan, it has been used for edible purposes for many years. This claim may or may not be true but we would like to have better evidence to uphold it. It may be possible, in course of time, to process rice bran by the use of advanced food technology in order to make it a common article of food for human consumption.Our attention is drawn by Shri Bhagat, who appears on behalf of the Haryana Government, to a decision of this Court in M/s Sachdeva &Sons &Ors v. State of Punjab &Ors (Civil Appeal No. 8 17 of 1980 decided on May 7, 1980) in which it was held thatrice bran is"cattle fodder" within the meaning of section 2(a)(i) of the Act. We need not go into that question since we are of the view that rice bran, being a foodstuff, is an essentialdecisions in The State of Bombay v. Virkumar Gulabchand Shah(1) and Shriniwas Pannalal Chockani v. The Crown(2) which were cited by Shri Maheshwari and Shri Bhagat respectively do not bear upon the question in issue befor e us and need not, therefore, be discussed.