Source: http://www.rishabhdara.com/sc/view.php?case=8132
Timestamp: 2020-08-14 06:23:30
Document Index: 479941635

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 14', 'Art. 254', 'Art. 14', 'Art.\n254', 'Art. 32', 'Art. 254', 'Art. 254', 'Art.\t14']

RAM CHANDRA MAWA LAL & ORS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS
1987 AIR 1837	1984 SCR (2) 348 1984 SCC Supl. 28	1984 SCALE (1)48
RAM CHANDRA MAWA LAL & ORS V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS [1984] RD-SC 9 (9 January 1984)
CITATION: 1987 AIR 1837	1984 SCR (2) 348 1984 SCC Supl. 28	1984 SCALE (1)48
Defence of	India Rules, 1971 promulgated under Defence of India Act, 1971-Rule 114-Interpretation of-Whether State Government can	fix price of an article declared to be essential commodity under the	Essential Commodities	Act, 1955 in	respect of which Central Government	has already fixed price under Fertilizer (Control) Order,	1957 promulgated under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Defence of	India Rules, 1971-Rule 114 (3)(h)-Scope of- Expression 'any' article-includes fertilizers.
Interpretation-Rule of-What is test for	ascertaining whether	conflict between Central and State statutes irreconcilable.
On October 11, 1973, the Central Government in exercise of power under cl. (3) of the Fertilizers (Control) order, 1957 promulgated under s.3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, issued a notification	fixing	the maximum retail selling price of certain fertilizer which dealers could charge from consumers leaving	with the dealers a very low margin of profit. Some time later in order to compensate the manufactures for the higher cost of inputs,	the Central Government issued another notification on June 1,	1974 fixing a very high retail selling price of the fertilizer to be charged by the dealers from the consumers. The dealers started charging the higher price fixed by	notification dated June 1, 1974 at the lower rate thus earning fabulous profit. On June 14, 1974 the State of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification (Uttar Pradesh Fertilizer Price (Supplementary) Order, 1974) in exercise of power under rule	114 of	the Defence of India Rules, 1971 promulgated under the Defence of India Act, 1971. This notification stated that the stocks of fertilizer acquired upto May 31,1974 by the dealers and which remained	unsold with them should be sold only at the price fixed by the Central Government's notification dated October 11, 1973 and not by notification of June 1,1974. The appellants (dealers) challenged before	the High Court the legality and validity of the State Government's notification dated June 14, 1974 on the grounds: (1) that the fertilizer in question having been declared an	essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, an Act specially enacted	inter	alia for regulating prices of essential commodities, its price could be regulated only under that Act and	not under the Defence of India Rules: (2) that the notification being	inconsistent with the Central Government's notification dated dated	June 1, 1974	was invalid : and (3) that the notification being discriminatory was violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. The High Court upheld the 349 validity of the impugned notification and dismissed the writ petitions. Hence these appeals.
(Per Murtaza Fazal Ali and Thakkar, JJ.) Both the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as also the Defence of India Rules	of 1971, are Central	legislations enacted by the Parliament. There is no constitutional or jurisprudential	limitation on the	competence of	the Parliament to create two avenues or sources of power for the regulation of prices of articles. Since Parliament	can constitutionally and validly enact two statutes creating two sources of power, and since, under both the statutes prices of fertilizers	can be	regulated, there is no illegality in acting under either or both.[357 D-E] Under the	DIR power has been conferred, inter alia, to regulate the price of	any article. The expression	`any article' is wide enough in	its amplitude	to envelope `fertilizers'.	The fact that `fertilizers' have	been declared as an	essential commodity under the Essential Commodities, Act, 1955 and its price can be regulated under the powers conferred by that Act, is altogether immaterial.
[357 H; 358 A] The Centre	and the State both cannot speak on the same channel and create disharmony.	If both speak, the voice of the Centre will drown the voice of the State. The State has to remain `silent' or	it will be `silenced'. But the State has the right to `speak'	and can `speak' (with unquestionable authority) where the Centre is `silent', without introducing disharmony. If the Centre sits only on a portion of the Chair,	the state can sit on the rest of the portion with arms thrown on the shoulders of	each other.
While the State cannot sit on the lap or on the shoulders of the Centre, both can certainly walk hand-in-hand, lending support to each other,	in a friendly manner,	towards the same destination. If the Centre. has built a wall, had has left a	gap from which intruders can infiltrate, the state can fill the gap in the wall, and	thus make its	own contribution to	the common cause. What is more, each in theory and principle. must be presumed to be conscious of the need for accord and need for accommodating each other in the interest of `NATIONAL HARMONY'. [360C-F] A general statute applies to all persons and localities within its jurisdictional scope, prescribing the governing law upon the subject	it encompasses, unless a special statute exists	to treat a refinement	of the	subject with particularity or to	prescribe a different	law for a particular locality. Where, however, the later special or local statute is not irreconcilable with the general statute to the	degree that both statutes cannot have a conterminous operation, the general statute will not be repealed, but the special or local statute will exist as an exception to its terms. [361 B-C] sutherland's Statutory Construction, 3rd Edition. Vol,
1. page 488, referred to One of the tests for	ascertaining	whether	the inconsistency is an irreconcilable or intolerable one, is to pose this question: Can the State law be obeyed or 350 respected without flouting or	violating the Central law in letter and spirit? If the answer is in the affirmative, the State law cannot be invalidated. Not	at any rate when the State law merely `promotes' the real	object of both	the laws, and is	in the real	sense	`supplementary' or complementary' to the Central law.
In	the present case, the Central notification is altogether silent on the ramification regarding sales from out of existing stocks	acquired by the dealers at lower rates. The impugned State notification, on the other hand, deals exclusively with this aspect. The State notification speaks on a refinement	of the subject about which	the Central notifications is blissfully. unaware and on which it is altogether	silent.	Both notifications can therefore safely be construed as	supplementary and friendly rather than inconsistent or hostile. [360 B-C] In	the instant	case,	assuming that	there	is inconsistency between the Central Government's notification and that of the State Government, it does not appear to be an irreconcilable or intolerable one, so as to invalidate the State Government's notification. In the present case the test answers in favour of the validity of the impugned State notification. The Central notification	is not	violated if the dealers sell the fertilizers from out of the existing stocks	acquired at the lower rates, for both	the notifications fix the minimum selling price and the maximum selling price fixed under the State notification is	not higher than that fixed under the Central notification. What is more, the state notification `promotes and serves' the object and purpose of	both the Centre and	the State.
`Promotes and serves' in the sense, that the manifest object of fixing maximum ceiling price is to make available to the cultivators who	grow the food for the NATION to obtain the inputs	at reasonable	prices	and to	protect them	from exploitation so	that the food production is not retarded.
[362 A-C] Art. 254(2) does not envision Presidential assent to `notifications' issued	under an Act (as distinguished from `laws made by legislature). [363 F] Kerala State Electricity Board v. Indian Aluminium Co.
The impugned notification is not violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution since the very basis of the challenge on the score of hostile discrimination is found to be	non- existent.[364 D] (Per Vardarajan J. dissenting) It cannot	be assumed that Parliament which had already legislated in	the Essential	Commodities Act, 1955, a permanent measure, in respect	of fertilizer	intended to legislate once	again and could have	felt the need to legislate once	again in the temporary Defence of India Act, 1971 in	respect of the same article especially because what could be done under the Defence of India Act and the Rules which may be framed thereunder could	as well be done with equal force under the	Essential Commodities Act and orders which may be passed thereunder. [377 B-C] Section 3(2) of the Essential Commodities Act lays down that the Central Government may, having regard to the local conditions of any area and other relevant circumstances, fix different prices or rates in respect of different areas 351 and for different classes of consumers. The State Government could have requested the Central Government to act under s.3(2) of the Essential Commodities Act and fix a different price or rate for the sale by dealers in that State of fertilizer carried over from the stock held on 31.5.1974.
Section 5(b) of the Essential Commodities Act provides for delegation of powers and says that the Central Government may, by	notified order, direct that the power to make or issue notifications under s.3 of that Act shall, in relation to such	matters and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be	specified in the direction be exercisable also by such State or such officer or	authority subordinate	to a State Government as may be specified in the direction. The Central Government has not issued any	direction under s.
5(b) of	the Essential	Commodities Act delegating its power to issue notification under s.3 of that Act	to the State Government or any officer or authority of that Government.
The State Government has thus not resorted to the provisions contained in s.3(2) or	s.5(b) of the Essential Commodities Act, but the proceeded of fix the price of fertilizer on its own under the Defence	of India Rules, 1971 which it cannot do under those Rules and the Defence of India Act, 1971 in respect of the essential commodity. [377 H; 378 A-D] The Defence of India Act, 1971, which was a general and temporary Act,	and the Rules framed thereunder cannot apply to fertilizer which is an essential commodity government by the Essential Commodities Act, 1955	and the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 made under the provisions of that Act.
Therefore the State Government	cannot	without delegation issue any notification under the Defence of India Act and Rules, 1971 in	regard	to the price	of fertilizer, an essential commodity governed by the Essential	Commodities Act and the Fertilizer (Control) order, 1957. [378 H; 379 A- B] There does	not appear to be any	provision in	Art.
254(2) of the Constitution for placing any notification made by a State Government under the Defence of India Rules, 1971 for consideration by the President. [380 C] If the State Government's impugned notification is assumed to be a law enacted by that State's Legislature on Entry 26 of List II, since the Act of Parliament passed on Entry 33 of List III and the Fertilizer (Control) order, 1957 passed under that Act were already in force, the assent of the	President had to be received in order that the State Government's notification assumed to be a law enacted by the State's Legislature may prevail in the State as required by Article 254(2)	of the Constitution. There is	nothing on record to show that the impugned notification of the State Government was	placed before the President for his assent and that his assent has been received. Therefore, the State Government's impugned notification even as a	law cannot prevail	over	the earlier notification of	the Central Government. [389 F-G; 380 C] Zaverbhai Amaidas v. State of Bombay. [1955] 1 SCR 799, referred to.
There is a clear conflict between the two notifications is respect of the same essential commodity, fertilizer, for under the Central Government's	notification dated 1.6.1974 the price at which a dealer can sell	fertilizer of	the concerned variety is Rs. 2000 per ton while under the State Government's notification dated 14.6.1974 is only Rs. 1050 per ton	though no doubt it is restricted to the stock carried over from 31.5.1974 which is immaterial in judging the power of the State Government to fix the price of an essential commodity by a notification 352 made under the Defence	of India Rules, 1971 in respect of which the Central Government had already fixed the price under the Fertilizer (Control) order, 1957. Once the Central enactment and the Central Government's notification govern the price of an essential commodity the State Government's notification issued in exercise of the delegated authority under the Defence of	India	Act and the Rules framed thereunder cannot prevail. [380 F-H] The two enactments have to be read in such a way that there is no conflict between them while giving effect to them in	their	respective fields. of	operation. If	the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Fertilizer (Control) order,	1957 are considered	to apply exclusively to fertilizer, an essential commodity, and the Defence of India Act, 1971 and the Defence	of India Rules, 1971	are considered to apply to other commodities excluding essential commodities there would be no conflict whatsoever between the Essential Commodities Act	and the Defence of India Act and between the notification issued under Fertilizer (Control) order, 1957 and the Defence of India Rules, 1971.
[381 A; 383 D-E] The author of the two enactments, Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Defence	of India Act,	1971 is the same, namely, Parliament, and Parliament must be held to have not intended to contradict itself	while dealing with distinct matters or situations under those enactments. If the State Governments are free	to fix their own	prices	in notifications issued by them under the Defence of India Rules,	1971 when the	Central Government's notification fixing a single price for the whole country in respect of an essential commodity is in force that	notification of the Central Government will become otiose. The question whether Parliament would have	intended such	a consequence.	The answer can only be an emphatic no. [382 D-E] Craies on Statute Law (seventh edition) at Page 222 and Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, referred to.
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.[384 F]
From the Judgment and order dated 14th August & 12th September, 1974	of the	Allahabad High	Court in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3422, 3498, 3430, 3462,	3491,	3429, 3427, 3423, 3472, 3443, 3473, 3474, 3494, 3439, 788, 774, 786,787, 791, 793, 869, 3428, 3502, 3420, 3421, 3528, 3478, 3477, & 3478 of 1974.
Yogeshwar Prashad, S. C. Manchanda, S. K. Bagga, 353 Pramod	Swarup,	O.P Agarwal,	Ms, Baby Krishnan	G.S.
Chaterjee. Mrs.	S.Dikshit, R.N. Trivedi Miss R. Govind for the Appellants.
The following Judgments were delivered THAKKAR, J. The	Constitution	which	promises a socialistic pattern of Society in the	preamble and traces the contours of the socialistic philosophy which permeates the spirit of the Constitutional can neither command	nor commend the exercise of the Constitutional Jurisdiction to issue HIGH PREROGATVE WRITS under Art. 32 226 or 227 in order not to remove injustice but to do injustice in order not to	prevent exploitation of the poor by the rich, but to permit	such exploitation. And yet	the CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION of	the Court (as	polarzed from	its 'ERROR JURISDICTION' has been invoked	in order to use the hand of the Court for transferring money from	the pockets of poor cultivators (who feed the Nation) to	the pockets of	the dealers in fertilizers (who feed themselves) by Challenging a notification	on technical grounds. Such jurisdiction is invoked to enable the	dealers to reap a 'rich' harvest of 'unjust enrichment' through the instrumentality of the Court at the	cost and expenses of the cultivators. We firmly believe	that	the	Court	exercising CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION is not obliged	to grant a writ in	such circumstances. But we	need not elaborate on the theme furthermore as	the High Court has rejected the petition on merits and as we are of the same opinion.
Events leading to the institution of the Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India giving rise to this group of appeals (by certificate of fitness granted by the	Allahabad High	Court)	have taken the following course:
(i) On October 11,1973 the Central Government issued a notification fixing the maximum retail selling price of certain varieties of fertilizers to the consumers. It	was issued in exercise of powers under clause (3) of the Fertilizer (Control) order of 1957 promulgated under	Section 3 of	the Essential Commodities Act of 1955. (referred to as 'Act' hereinafter).
(ii) Some	time later, on June	1,1974	the Central Government issued a Notification	whereby	the maximum retail selling price of different varieties of	fertilizers was steeply revised upwards in order to compensate the 'manufac- 354 turers' in the context of the spurt in the prices of various inputs. The extent of the rise may be illustrated by taking the instance of 'Urea 46% Nitrogen. Its	price was revised upwards from Rs.
(iii) On June 14 1974 the State of' Uttar Pradesh issued the	Uttar	Pradesh Fertilizer Prices (Supplementary) Order	1974 in exercise of	the powers conferred by Rule 114 of the Defence of India	Rules,	1971	adverted to	as 'D.I.R.
hereinafter.	Under	this	notification	the registered 'dealers' were prohibited from charging to the cultivators price in excess of the maximum price prevailing immediately prior to the upward revision authorised by the Central Government on June 1, 1974 in respect of stocks acquired at pre- revision rates held by the dealers on the eve of the upward revision of prices.
(iv) The	net result of the	two last mentioned notifications was as follows: The dealers could sell to the cultivators fertilizers at the higher rates authorised by the notification dated June 1 1974 from out of the stocks	acquired thereafter under	both the notifications. As	regards	the stocks acquired after June 1 1974 the registered dealers were	not affected by the	notification issued by the State Government under the DIR in as much as the notification issued by	the Central Government authorising the upward revision remained unaffected by the notification issued by the State. The dealers however could not sell the fertilizers at the higher rates from out of the existing stock acquired by them at the lower rates immediately prior to the upward revision effected on June 1	1974 in view	of the aforesaid notification issued by the State Government on June 14 1974. Taking	the instance of 'Urea	46% Nitrogen' the	net impact of the impugned State notification	was that the	'dealers' were	not permitted to	charge to the cultivators Rs. 2000 per ton instead of Rs. 1090 per ton in respect of stocks acquired at the lower rates.
(v) It was in	this background that	the dealers instituted the petitions giving rise to	the present appeals by certificate, challenging	the legality and validity of the 355 impugned notification issued by	the State Government on June 14 1974.
(i) The registered 'dealers' were entitled to a fixed profit margin	of Rs.	45 per	ton (and no more) under the terms and conditions of the licence held by them.
(ii) The stocks acquired	prior to June 1 1974	were meant for sale to the cultivators at the	pre- upward revision rates at which rates the dealers had acquired	the stocks. This stock had remained unsold with the dealers till than	because the cultivators had not been able to effect their purchases till that date.
(iii) The	price rise was authorised to compensate the 'manufacturers' in the context of the spurt in the price of various 'inputs' and had no bearing on the selling price for the 'dealers' who were not concerned with the cost of production.
(iv) In case the	State Government had not issued the impugned notification dated	June 14 1974	the dealers would have been enabled to	charge about twice the prices at	which the stocks were	made available to	them	for sale prior to	the notification. For instance 'Urea 46%. Nitrogen' made available to the dealers for effecting sales to the cultivators at Rs. 1090 per ton could have been sold to the cultivators at Rs. 2000 per ton.
Thus they would have	been enabled to make a wind fall bumper profit of Rs. 910 per ton (in respect of 'Urea 46% Nitrogen') as against permitted profit margin	of Rs. 45 per ton (i.e. about 1000% in place of	about	5%) and to secure unjust enrichment'	for themselves to	such	an unconscionable extent at the cost of	the cultivators.
It is in the backdrop of	these undisputed facts that the question	regarding the	validity of the impugned notification dated June 14 1974 issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh came to be challenged before	the High Court of Allahabad.
The impugned notification was issued in order to meet a problem 356 which arose in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the situation. The	problem arose apparently because	the competent authority exercising the powers of	the Central Government under the Essential	Commodities Act overlooked that the dealers who were concerned with the distribution of the fertilizers	to the	cultivators on	a fixed and assured profit margin of Rs 45 per ton would	be having with them stock-in-trade obtained	at the	pre-enhancement prices. And that they might take under advantage	of the	situation by charging a higher rate	to the consumers even in respect of the stocks acquired at the lower rates The dealers could and should have sold the stock in-trade acquired at the pre- enhancement price at the hiterto prevailing rates till the old stocks were exhausted. That is what would have	been expected of them having regard to the fact that they were getting a fixed and assured margin of profit of Rs. 45/- per ton and	that the enhancement of the price was necessitated and made solely to neutralize the rise in the cost of the inputs which phenomenon affected only the 'manufacturers' and not	the 'dealers'.	There was therefore no occasion or justification on their part for charging a higher price to the consumers in regard to the sales	effected from	the existing stocks acquired at	the	lower	rates.	The notification issued by the Central Government on June 1 1974 was silent on the question of selling prices in respect of sales from out of stocks acquired earlier at the lower rate.
Since the said notification issued by the Central Government was silent the State Government which appears to have been more vigilant stepped in and exercised powers which	were conferred on it by the DIR.
The challenge before the	High Court was made on three main grounds, viz:
(A) The Central Government	having	issued a notification	in exercise of powers under	the Essential Commodities Act	1955	the State Government could not	have issued the impugned notification under the Uttar	Pradesh Fertilizer Prices (Supplementary) order 1974	issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 114 of the 'DIR. The power	to fix the maximum price in respect of fertilizers could	be exercised	only under the Essential. Commodities Act it being a special Act and could not have been exercised by the State Government by issuing an order under the 'D.I.R.' (B) Even if the State Government had the power to issue 357 the notification under the D.I.R. the notification was invalid by reason of its inconsistency with the notification issued by the Central Government on June 1 1974 under the Essential Commodities Act 1955.
The High Court of	Allahabad negatived all the three contentions by	an extremely	well considered and	well reasoned judgment. In	the present group of	appeals by certificate the	original petitioners have reiterated	the same contentions before this Court.
Re: Ground A: The argument in	substance is	that Essential Commodities Act 1955 is a special Act under which the price relating to a commodity	declared to be an essential commodity can be regulated. The power to regulate the price in respect of such an essential commodity cannot therefore be exercised under Defence of India Rules 1971 or under any other provision of law.
Now, both	the Essential Commodities Act	1955 as also the Defence of India Rules of 1971 are Central legislations enacted by the Parliament. The 'D.I.R.' were brought into force by the Parliament in 1971 in	order	to meet an emergency situation. The legislative	competence of	the Parliament to enact the legislation.	On the	subject in question namely	fixation of prices of	all articles is not questioned. The Parliament having competence to legislate in regard to the subject has enacted both the legislations one in 1955 another in 1971.
The impugned notification has been issued under	the latter statute.	The 'D.I.R.' having been enacted later it cannot and it has not been contended that the doctrine of repeal is attracted. Since there is legislative competence since the statute is not eclipsed by the doctrine of express or implied repeal how	can the	power exercised under	the valid statute be assailed ? The only argument advanced a misconceived one in our opinion. is that since the 'Act' deals with essential commodities and fertilizer has	been declared under	the Act	as an essential commodity the power conferred by the 'D.I.R.' cannot be exercised in respect of regulation of the price of such a commodity or article. It is not	disputed that under the DIR power has been conferred inter-alia to regulate the price of	'any' article.	The expression 'any article' is wide enough in its amplitude 358 to envelope 'fertilizers'. The fact that 'fertilizers' have been declared as an essential commodity and its price can be regulated under the	powers	conferred by	the Act is altogether immaterial.	There	is no constitutional or jurisprudential	limitation on the	competence of	the Parliament to create two avenues or sources of power for the regulation of prices of articles. There is	nothing in principle or precedent to support the proposition that two avenues or sources of power cannot be validly created. What then is	the fabric of the challenge	? The	only answer offered by the	counsel is that the	Act is a statute specially enacted inter alia for regulation of the prices of commodities declared to be essential and therefore in respect of such commodities the power can be exercised only under the Act. We are unable	to accede to this argument Since as discussed earlier Parliament can constitutionally and validity enact two	statutes creating two	sources of power and since under both the statutes prices of fertilizers can	be regulated;	there is no illegality in acting under 'either'	or 'both'. Counsel however seeks support from the following passage from Craies on Statute Law(1) "Acts of Parliament some times contain general enactments relating to the whole subject-matter of the statute and also specific	and particular enactments relating to certain special matters; and if the general and specific enactments	prove	to be	in any	way repugnant to one another the question will arise which is to control the	other ? In Pretty v. Solly. (1859) 26 Beav. 606 610.	Romilly M.R. stated as follows what he considered to be the rule of construction under such circumstances. "The general rules" said he "which are applicable to particular	and general enactments in statutes are very clear;	the only difficulty is in their application.	The rule is, that whenever there is a particular enactment and a general enactment in the same statute and the	latter	taken in its	most comprehensive sense would over rule the	former	the particular enactment must be operative and the general enactment must be taken to affect only the other parts of the statute to which it may properly apply." (Emphasis added) It is overlooked that the said	passage	deals	with different pro- 359 visions in the "same" statute. That when there is a special provision in the very	same statute in regard to a subject matter the special provision of the statute will ordinarily prevail in rivalry or competition with the general provision is a proposition with which there is no quarrel. But then we are not	at all	concerned with any rivalry	between	two provisions of the 'same' statute. We	are faced with	two enactments by the same legislature which create two sources of power to achieve the same	purpose. To repeat what has been observed earlier there is no legal bar to creating two sources of power. And there is no authority in principle or precedent for contending that	one source of power is more valid than the other. Or that the power validly conferred by the same legislature can be exercised only under one and not the other of the two statutes leaving aside the question of irreconcilable or intolerable inconsistency. We therefore confirm the view of the High Court and repel the challenge.
Re: Ground B: The validity of the impugned notification issued by the State under the	'DIR' is assailed on	the ground that it is inconsistent with the earlier notification issued by the Centre.	As discussed earlier	the Central notification does not 'specifically' deal with the question as regards selling price in respect	of sales from	the existing stocks acquired by	the dealers at the	pre- enhancement prices which remained unsold with	them as the cultivators could not effect purchases till then. In other words the Central notification	does not deal with	this ramification at	all. It does not show awareness of	this dimension and is altogether silent on the subject.	The impugned State	notification issued later on the other hand deals specifically pointedly and solely with this dimension.
It is in this	perspective that the issue has to be judged bearing in mind the undisputed position that there is no Centre-State conflict involved in the sense that (1)	the Centre which is not even impleaded as a party does	not question the power of	the State or the validity of	the notification as	impinging on its (Centre's) jurisdiction or authority; (2)	Centre has not asserted its superior authority from the standpoint of Centre-State-power equation in order to supersede the State notification.
(1) Whether there	is any	inconsistency	between	the Central notification on the one hand and the State notification on the other and;
Is there inconsistency? The Central notification as discussed	earlier is altogether silent on the ramification regarding sales from out of	existing stocks	acquired by the dealers at lower rates. The impugned State notification on the other	hand deals exclusively with this aspect. The State notification on speaks on a	refinement of	the subject about which the Central notification is blissfully unaware and on which it is altogether silent. The two do not	overlap. There is therefore no real inconsistency. The principle may be stated thus. The Centre and the State both cannot speak on the same channel and create disharmony.	If both speak, the voice of the Centre will drown the voice of the State. The State has to remain 'silent' or	it will be 'silenced'. But the State has the right to 'speak'	and can 'speak' (with unquestionable	authority) where the	Centre is 'silent' without introducing disharmony. If the Centre sits only on a portion' of the Chair	the State can sit on the rest of the portion with arms thrown on the shoulders of each other, in a friendly manner towards the	same destination. If	the Centre has built a wall and has left	a gap	from which intruders can infiltrate the State can fill the gap in the wall and thus make its own contribution to the Common Cause.
What is	more each in theory and principle must be presumed to be conscious of the need	for accord and need	for accommodating each other in	the interest of 'NATIONAL HARMONY'.
The Centre can object to the State speaking on the same channel	or sitting on its shoulders and perhaps	even override the State. But the	Centre	and the State	can certainly accommodate each other in a friendly spirit in the overall NATIONAL INTEREST when	both of them are trying to supplement each other. In	the present	case	both notifications can safely be construed as supplementary and friendly rather	than inconsistent or hostile.	The Centre does not question to the State speaking on the nuance on which the Centre has maintained silence. There is therefore no real	element of inconsistency in the two notifications.
The following passage extracted from Statutory 361 Construction by	Sutherland (para 2022(1),) shows that the aspect relating	to 'refinement' is a well recognized factor and that the state law can be treated as an exception when the inconsistency is not irreconcilable :- "A general statute applies to all	persons	and localities within its jurisdictional scope, prescribing the governing law upon the subject it	encompasses, unless a special statute	exists to treat a refinement of the subject with particularity or to prescribe a different law for a particular locality. Likewise where a later statute adapted	for a	particular locality conflicts with a general law of state-wide application, the special or local law will supersede the general enactment. Where,	however, the later special or local statute is	not irreconcilable with the general statute to the	degree that both statutes cannot have a coterminous operation, the general statute will not be repealed, but the special	or local statute will exist as an exception to its terms." (Emphasis added) Assuming for the sake of argument that it is considered to be an inconsistency, it does not appear to be an irreconcilable or intolerable one so as to invalidate it, as will be presently shown.
Is the	alleged inconsistency irreconcilable or intolerable one ? There are	degrees of inconsistency in the context of conflict of laws. There can be apparent	or surface inconsistency which may be considered	as a	non-hostile, tolerable, benign, one, subject to the unquestioned power of the Centre to override the State if so minded. On principle, every apparent	inconsistency cannot	be presumed to be hostile or intolerable. More so when	the Centre does not even raise a whisper of discord. One	of the tests	for ascertaining whether the inconsistency is an irreconcilable or intolerable	one, is to pose this question: Can the State law be obeyed or respected without flouting or violating the Central law in letter	and spirit ? If the answer is in the affirmative, the State law cannot be invalidated. Not at any rate when the State law merely 'promootes' the real object of both the 362 laws, and is	in the real	sense	'supplementary' or 'complementary' to the Central law. In the present case the test answers in favour of the validity of the impugned State notification. The Central notification	is not	violated if the dealers sell the fertilizers from	out of the existing stocks	acquired at the lower rates, for both	the notifications fix the maximum selling price and the maximum selling price fixed under the State notification is	not higher than that fixed under the Central notification. What is more, the State notification 'promotes and serves' the object and purpose of	both the Centre and	the State.
'Promotes and serves', in the	sense,	that the manifest object of fixing maximum ceiling price is to make available to the cultivators who	grow the food for the NATION to obtain the inputs at reasonable prices and to protect them from exploitation so	that the food	production is	not retarded. It is not contended even by the petitioners, for the very good reason that it	is incapable of being so contended, that	the object of the price regulation is to enable the dealers to	make unconscionable profit. Thus the impugned State	notification promotes rather than 'defeats', the 'life-aim'	of Central as also the State notifications.
It 'helps' rather than	'hurts' the objectives and goals of the Centre, and there is	no conflict whatsoever of 'interest', 'purpose',	or 'perspective'. The State has done only that which the Centre presumably	would have readily done if	it was fully aware of the situation from all angles of vision. For, the only impact of the impugned notification is that	the 'cultivator' for whose protection the price regulation is essentially made, is saved from exploitation without hurting	the legitimate claim of the dealer, who, in any case, gets his fixed profit margin of Rs. 45/- per ton.
In	Australian Boot Trade Employee's Federation v.
Whybrow Co.,(1)	the High Court of Australia in a somewhat similar situation held	that there was no inconsistency between a State law fixing a minimum wage for workers in the boot trade of 1$ per hour and a federal law fixing a minimum wage for the same workers of	1-1/2 $	per hour. Speaking through Barton, J. the court observed :- "The determinations of the wages boards (in effect the State	law) and the proposed award (in effect, the Commonwealth law)	are courched in the affirmative in respect of	the material part of each, the provision as to	the minimum wage. None of	them prescribed an inflexible rate. The (State) determinations prescribe a minimum and it is in each case 363 lower than the	minimum	named	by the proposed (Commonwealth) award. By paying the latter minimum an employer will be obeying	both laws. The	affirmative words of the (Commonwealth) award, therefore, do not "impart a	contradiction" between	it and	the (State) determinations. It is impossible to say that	the employer cannot obey the	one without disobeying	the other. Therefore,	the former and the latter may stand together. Therefore, according to the proper test, they are not inconsistent." (Emphasis added) It would thus appear that in a somewhat parallel situation the Australian High Court had taken the view that since both laws can be obeyed without disobeying any, there is no conflict. In the present case also an endeavor must be made to place a harmonious interpretation which would avoid a collision between the two. Another way of looking at the problem is this: The impugned notification, though issued by the State, has its source of power in the 'DIR' which is a Central Statute	enacted by the Parliament. The State is merely an instrumentality for	executing the purpose of the Central Act. The impugned notification which is 'later' in point of time must, therefore, prevail to the extent it 'speaks' on the refinement or nuance of the matter on which nuance the earlier notification is 'silent'. In any view of the matter, therefore, the challenge	from this platform cannot succeed.
It may be mentioned that a half-hearted argument was advanced that	Art. 254(2)	would	be attracted	and Presidential assent would become necessary in order to give effect to the impugned notification. There is no merit in it in as much as	Art. 254(2) does not envision Presidential assent	to 'notifications' issued under an Act	(as distinguished from 'laws made by legislature') as has been observed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Indian Aluminium Co.,(1) wherein Alagiriswami, J. speaking for	himself	and for Bhagwati, Goswami and Sarkaria JJ. says:- "Was it necessary to	get the President's assent for this notification as	contended by some of	the respondents ? Quite clearly no Presidential assent was possible to the notification. Article 254(2) does not contemplate Presidential 364 assent to	notifications issued under the Act.	The article contemplates Presidential assent only to laws made by the legislature of a State." This ground of attach also accordingly fails.
Regarding ground (C): The appellants contended that the impugned notification was violative of Art.	14 of	the Constitution of India and was therefore invalid.	The argument was advanced on the	assumption that the State Government had	permitted governmental agencies falling within the definition of 'dealer' in the Fertilizer Control Order, 1957 to sell the stocks held by the said agencies immediately preceding	the issuance	of the impugned notification dated June 1, 1974 at the higher rates. This allegation has	been controverted by the State of Uttar Pradesh. A reference to the counter-affidavit sworn by the Accounts Officer, Fertilizers and Manuals Directorate of Agriculture, field in C.M.P. No. 6773 of 1974 clearly shows that the State Government	had not granted any	such permission. Thus, the very basis of the challenge on the score of hostile discrimination is found	to be	non- existent. The	High Court was perfectly justified in rejecting this	contention. We, therefore, confirm the view taken by the High Court.
Thus all the grounds called into aid by the appellant for challenging	the impugned notification are	found to be devoid of substance.
Under the	circumstances	the appeals fail and	are dismissed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order regarding costs.
The interim orders passed	by this Court	are hereby vacated. In the result, the concerned	District Magistrate will now have to take appropriate steps to pass on and pay to the	cultivators the differential amount deposited by the dealers pursuant to this Court's orders dated September 2, 1974, and, October, 10, 1974, as early as possible. And, in any event, within six	months of this order,	after proper verification. We order accordingly.
365 VARADARAJAN, J. Civil Appeal 1656 of 1974 is by special leave. The other appeals are by certificate granted by the Allahabad High	Court. All the appeals	arise	out of	the judgment of a Division	Bench of that High Court in a batch of writ	Petitions out	of which W.P. No. 3421 of 1974 was treated as the leading case. Civil Appeals 1568-1576 of 1974 and batch have arisen	out of that batch of Writ Petitions.
In the	other set of Civil Appeals another Writ Petition of 1974 is said to have been treated as the leading case by the High Court. The decisions were rendered in Writ Petition No.
3421 of	1974 for one batch and in another Writ Petition of 1974 for the other batch. But in all the appeals before us, the judgment in W.P. No. 3421 of 1974 alone was referred to.
The Writ Petitions filed	under Article	226 of	the Constitution challenged the validity of a notification dated 14-6-1974 issued by the Government of Uttar	Pradesh in exercise of the power	conferred by Rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971, directing that no registered dealer of fertilizer shall charge or retain, enter into or enforce any contract for charging, in respect of any fertilizer sold to any person on or after 1.6.1974, from any stock held on 31.5.1974, a price exceeding the maximum price fixed by the Central Government for the sale of fertilizer under an earlier notification dated 11.10.1973 issued under Clause 3 of the	Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 made in exercise of the power conferred by	s. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as it prevailed on 31-5-1974. The Writ Petitions challenged also	an order dated 18.6.1974 passed by	the District Agricultural Officers directing registered dealers of fertilizers	to refund the excess price charged on the sale of fertilizer effected on or after 1.6.1974 from out of the stock which was in existence on 31.5.1974. The	Writ Petitions sought the quashing of the said notification dated 14.6.1974 and also a direction to the District Agricultural Officers and other District Authorities not	to ask	the dealers to refund the	excess in respect of sales completed prior to the date of that notification. The High Court has, while upholding	the validity	of the	notification dated 14.6.1974 and dismissing the prayer for quashing the same, directed the	District Agricultural	Officers and other District Authorities not to enforce the order for refund of the excess price realized on the sale of fertilizer up to 14.6.1974 from	the stocks which were in existence on 31.5.1974. This	part of the High Court's order has become final and has not been challenged by the State Government.
This Court has directed by	orders	dated 2.9.1974	and 30.10.1974 that	the excess price charged on the sale of fertilizer which was in the possession of the appellants before 1.6.1974 should be deposited 366 with the District Magistrate concerned within a fortnight of the sales to remain in a separate account.
The fertilizer in question is admittedly	a commodity controlled under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 issued by the Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by s.3	of the Essential Commodities Act, 19555. The maximum price for sale of fertilizers	by registered	dealers to consumers is	fixed under Clause 3	of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 by notifications issued from time to time. The sale price of one of the varieties of fertilizers with which we are concerned in these appeals has been fixed at Rs. 1050 per ton by a notification dated 11.10.1973 which was in force	on 31.5.1974.	The price fixed in	that notification for the sale of that variety of fertilizer to registered dealers was Rs. 1005 per ton leaving a margin of Rs. 45 per ton on sale to consumers at Rs. 1050 per ton. The Central Governments in	supersession of the	notification dated 11.10.1973 fixed	the maximum sale price of	that variety of fertilizer at Rs. 2000 per ton by a notification dated 1.6.1974,	thus giving an increases of Rs. 950 per ton for that variety to the dealers. The dealers started selling at the	new rates fixed in that notification for the several varieties of fertilizers. The	Government of Uttar Pradesh being of the view that the Central Government's notification dated 1.6.1974	was not	intended to apply to old stock procured by dealers at considerably	lower	prices	from producers which	was in	existence on 31.5.1974 issued	the impugned notification dated 14.6.1974 directing that the old stock should be sold at the old rate	of Rs. 1050 per ton with effect from 1.6.1974. The Writ Petitions were filed by the dealers,	some of them	for quashing	the State Government's notification dated 14.6.1974, some for quashing that notification as	also for directing the District Agricultural Officers and other District Authorities not to enforce the order mentioned above and	some for the latter direction alone.
The question for consideration by the High Court was the validity of the State Government's notification dated 14.6.1974 as regards the stock of fertilizer available with the dealers at the end of 31.5.1974, i.e., whether	that notification will prevail over the Central	Government's notification dated 1.6.1974.
The first	contention urged for the dealers before the High Court was that fertilizer was not a commodity essential to the community within the meaning of s.3 of the Defence of India Act, 1971 and, therefore, the State Government had no power to fix its price or give 367 any other direction in regard thereto. The learned Judges of the High Court held	that	chemical fertilizers being necessary for increased production of food crops and	oil seeds crops under modern scientific methods of agriculture would be commodities essential for the life of the community and that the argument	that trade in chemical	fertilizers cannot be regulated under s.3 of the Defence of India Act, 1971 is untenable. Before us no argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that chemical fertilizers are not	essential commodities.	On the	other hand, it was repeatedly contended that it	is an	essential commodity within the meaning of s.2(1)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and is specifically mentioned as such in s.2(1)(a) (xi) of	that Act. There is no dispute before us about this matter though there is	dispute whether fertilizer can be brought within	the words "any article" mentioned in	Rule 114(2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971. Therefore, that question does not arise for detailed consideration by us.
The second	ground of attack before the High Court was that the State Government lacked the	power to control the price of chemical fertilizer on the ground that no	such power is conferred on	it by the Defence of India Act, 1971 and the	rules framed thereunder in respect	of chemical fertilizer as being needed for the	preparation of	the defence or connected with the prosecution of war.	This contention was	rejected by the learned Judges of the High Court. It is not necessary for us to consider this aspect of the matter as no such argument was advanced before us by the learned counsel for the appellants. The dispute before us is as to whether chemical	fertilizer would fall	within	the words "any article" found in Rule 114(2) of the Defence of India Rules framed in exercise of the power conferred by s.3 of the	Defence of India Act, 1971 though it is not disputed that the impugned State Government	notification dated 14.6.1974 was issued when the emergency which was lifted on 22.3.1977 was in force.
The next contention urged	before the High Court	was that as	the Central Government had already fixed the price of chemical fertilizer by the notification dated 1.6.1974 issued under the Fertilizer (Control) Order,	1957 made in exercise of the power conferred by	s.3(2)	(c) of	the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the State Government had no power to fix its price under Rule 114(2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971 by the later notification dated 14.6.1974 in exercise of its delegated power. This contention	was rejected by the learned Judges of the High Court as being unacceptable. The argument of	the learned Advocate-General appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh 368 before the High Court was that by the impugned notification dated 14.6.1974	the State Government	had not fixed	any price,	but had only	directed that	certain stocks of fertilizers which were in the	possession of	dealers on 31.5.1974 shall	be sold at the rates fixed by the Central Government in the earlier Notification dated 11.10.1973 which had been superseded by its own	notification dated 11.6.1974, has	not been accepted by the learned Judges of the High Court as the basis of their decision. On the other hand, they have proceeded on	the basis that the State Government has	fixed	the dealers'	sale price of	the fertilizer by the impugned notification in exercise of the power conferred	by Rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971.
The undisputed fact is that the	price fixed for the sale of the fertilizer to dealers was Rs. 1005 per ton under the Central Government's previous	notification dated 11.10.1973 which was	superseded by its	subsequent notification dated 1.6.1974 in	which the price fixed	for sale of	the same variety of fertilizer to dealers was Rs.
1960 per ton from the date of that notification. The price fixed for sale by dealers was	Rs. 1050 per ton under the superseded notification	dated 11.10.1973 and Rs. 2000 per ton in	the notification dated 1.6.1974. The learned Judges of the	High Court noted the obvious fact that the dealers would get an excessive margin of Rs. 995 per ton in respect of the	old stock purchased by	them at Rs. 1005 per ton by selling that stock at the new sale price of Rs. 2000 per ton fixed by the notification dated 1.6.1974, whereas under the notification dated 11.10.1973 their margin was only Rs. 45 per ton. They have expressed the view that it could be a legitimate circumstance	to persuade them to exercise their discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution against the appellants.
The learned Judges rejected the contention urged on behalf of the dealers	that there is	conflict of power exercised by the Central Government and the State Government in the	same commodity, fertilizer, by the two notifications dated 1.6.1974	and 14.6.1974 on the ground that	the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 under which the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 has been made and	the Central Government's notification dated 1.6.1974 has been issued and the Defence of India Act, 1971, under which the Defence of India Rules,	1971 have been framed and	the State Government's notification dated 14.6.1974 has been issued, are both Central enactments operating in different fields and have different objects, that it is only an accident that the two notifications relate to the same commodity, fertilizer, considered	as an essential commodity by	the Central Gov- 369 ernment	under	the Essential	Commodities Act and as a commodity essential to the community by the State Government under the Defence of India Rules, that the State Government has unfettered	power under Rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971 to fix the price of fertilizer and regulate its supply	notwithstanding the fact that fertilizer is an essential commodity under the	Essential Commodities	Act, 1955 and that the State Government can also	do under the Defence of India Rules, 1971 framed under the Defence of India Act, 1971 what the Central Government can do under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 made under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.	The learned Judges rejected	the argument of the learned Advocate-General that	the Central Government's notification dated 1.6.1974 does not apply to stock of fertilizer which the dealers	had carried forward from the stock which was available on 31.5.1974 and held that in view of s.37 of the Defence of India Act, 1971 which says that the provisions of that Act	or any Rule	made thereunder or any Order made under any such Rule shall have effect	not withstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than	that Act, or in any instrument having effect by virtue of	any enactment other than that Act confers supremacy on the	later State Government notification	dated	14.6.1974 over	that of the Central	Government dated 1.6.1974. They held that	the similar provision in s.6 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 which says that any order made under s.3 of that Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything	inconsistent therewith in any other	enactment or any instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment other than that Act will not have any effect on the power of	the State Government exercised under	the Rules made under	the later Defence of India Act, 1971 which	also is a Central enactment on the ground that the provisions of the later enactment prevail over those in the earlier enactment of the same legislative body in view of s.37 of the later Act.
The learned Judges of the High	Court rejected	the contention urged on behalf of the dealers that the Essential Commodities Act	is a special Act dealing with essential commodities and	the Defence of India Act, 1971 is a general Act dealing with all other commodities and, therefore, the notification dated 1.6.1974 issued by the Central Government under the Fertilizer (Central) Order, 1957 made under the provisions of	that Act must prevail over the State Government's notification dated 14.6.1974 issued under the Defence of India Rules, 1971, framed	under the Defence of India Act, 1971. They	have observed that no	question of special or general Act arises in these cases in view of the provisions contained in s.37 of the Defence of 370 India Act, 1971 and that s.6	of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 draws within its ambit only those Acts which were in existence and in force on	the date of commencement of that Act and that it cannot take within its ambit the later Defence of India Act, 1971.
The learned Judges of the High	Court rejected	the contention urged on behalf of the dealers that the State Government's impugned	notification dated 14.6.1974 is malafide and motivated and the result of colourable exercise of power. There is no need to refer to this ground of attack in detail as no argument was	advanced in this Court about any such ground.
The next contention urged before the learned Judges of the High Court on behalf of the dealers was that the State Government's notification dated 14.6.1974 was discriminatory on the ground that some governmental agencies falling within the definition	of "dealer" in the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 were permitted to sell their stock of fertilizer carried over from 31.5.1974 at the new rate mentioned in the Central	Government's	notification dated 1.6.1974.	The learned Judges	rejected this contention on the ground that the impugned notification dated 14.6.1974 applies to	all dealers of fertilizer equally	and does not provide for any such discriminatory treatment to governmental agencies and that the executive order to that effect, if	any, may be illegal and would not	invalidate the impugned notification as being discriminatory.
The learned Judges of the High Court thus upheld the validity of the State	Government's impugned	notification dated 14.6.1974 and held that it is only prospective in operation and would apply only to sales of fertilizer made from 14.6.1974 out of the stock which was available with the dealers at the end of 31.5.1974.
The appellants are dealers in fertilizer as defined in Clause	2(c) of the	Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957.
According to that clause "dealer" means any person carrying on the	business of selling fertilizer, whether wholesale or retail. According to Clause 2(d) of that Order, fertilizer means any substance used or intended	to be	used as a fertilizer of the soil and specified in column 1 of Schedule I and includes a mixture of	fertilizers and a special mixture of fertilizers. Trade and commerce in, and	the production, supply and distribution of the products of any industry where	the control of such industry by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in public interest fall under entry 33 of the Concurrent List III in the Seventh 371 Schedule of the Constitution. Trade and commerce within the State subject to the provisions of Entry 33 of List III fall under entry 26 of the State List II	in the	same Seventh Schedule. Fertilizer	is an	essential commodity under s.2(a)(xi) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.	The Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957, has been made in exercise of the	power conferred	by s.3 of the Essential Commodities Act in	respect of fertilizer. Under Clause 3(1) of	that Order the Central Government has power, with	a view to regulating equitable distribution of fertilizers and making fertilizers available at fair	prices, by a notification in the official gazette, to fix the maximum price or rates at which any fertilizer may be sold by a manufacturer or a dealer. The Central Government	had issued the notification dated 11.10.1973 fixing the maximum sale price by producers to dealers as Rs. 1005 per ton and the maximum sale price by dealers to consumers as Rs. 1050 per ton in respect of the variety of fertilizer with which we are concerned in these appeals. There	is nothing on record to show that when that notification of	the Central Government was in force there was any notification of the	State Government of Uttar Pradesh fixing	the maximum price of fertilizer for sale by dealers. Subsequently, the Central Government	issued	the notification No. G.S.R. 254E	dated 1.6.1974	fixing	the maximum price at which	a dealer could sell that variety of fertilizer as Rs. 2000	per ton in supersession of	the earlier notification dated 11.10.1973.	There is no dispute that the price fixed for sale of that variety of fertilizer by the	producer to the dealer	is Rs.	1960 per ton. Under s.3(1) of the	Defence	of India Act, 1971	the Central Government had	power,	by notification in the Official Gazette, to make such	rules as appear to it necessary or expedient for securing	the defence of India and civil defence, the public safety, the maintenance of public order or the	efficient conduct of military	operations, or	for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community.	Section 1(3) of that Act said that the Act shall come into force	at once and shall remain in force during the period of	operation of the Proclamation of Emergency and for six months thereafter. There is no dispute that the Emergency which was in force when that Act	was passed was lifted on 22.3.1977. Rule 114(2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971 made in exercise of the power conferred by s.3(1) of the Defence of India Act, 1971 says that if the Central Government or the State Government is of opinion that it	is necessary or expedient so to do for securing the defence of India and civil defence, the efficient conduct of military operations or the maintenance or	increase of supplies and services essential to the life of the community or for	securing the equitable distribution and availability of any article or thing at fair prices, it may, by order 372 provide	for regulation or prohibiting the	production, manufacture. supply and distribution, use and consumption of articles or things and	trade and commerce therein or for preventing any	corrupt practice or abuse of authority in respect of any such matter.
Rule 114(3)(h) gives power to the Central Government or the State Government to fix the prices or rates at which articles or things of any description whatsoever may be sold or hired or for relaxing any	maximum	or minimum limits otherwise imposed on such prices or rates. It is under that rule that the State	Government issued the impugned notification No. A-490(V)/XII-1974 dated 14.6.1974 fixing the maximum price of the concerned variety of fertilizer in these terms : "No registered dealer shall charge or retain or enter into or enforce any	contract for charging, in respect of any fertilizer sold to any person	on or after June 1,	1974 a	from out of any stock carried over by him from May 31,1974 a price exceeding the maximum price fixed under Clause 3 of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 as it prevailed on May 31, 1974". The reference to the price as it prevailed on May 31, 1974 is	to the	price fixed in	the Central Government's notification dated 11.10.1973 which has been specifically superseded by	the	Government's notification dated 1.6.1974. The High Court has held that the impugned notification dated 14.6.1974 is prospective in operation and can apply only to sales made from 14.6.1974 of the fertilizer which was carried over from the stock held at the close of	31.5.1974. It	is not	disputed that	the notification could be only prospective in operation and would not apply to sales effected up to 14.6.1974 of the fertilizer carried over from the stock which was held at the end of	31.5.1974. It is also	not disputed that the State Government issued the impugned notification with the object of preventing dealers from profiting to the extra extent of Rs. 950	per ton in respect of the stock which had	been purchased by them prior to 1.6.1974 at Rs. 1005 per ton by selling	the same at	Rs. 2000 per	ton fixed in	the notification dated 1.6.1974 while that stock could have been sold prior to 1.6.1974	only at Rs.	1050 per ton.	The question is which of these two notification is valid and should prevail in regard to the fertilizer carried over from the stock held by dealers at the close of 31.5.1974.
The Central Government's notification dated 1.6.1974 issued under Clause 3(1) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 made in exercise	of the	power conferred by s.3(1) of the Essential	Commodities Act, 1955, and	the State Government's impugned notification dated 373 14.6.1974 issued under Rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971 made in exercise of the powers conferred by s.3(1) of the Defence of India Act, 1971 relate to the same commodity, fertilizer, which is declared to be an essential commodity under s.2(a)(xi) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and may ordinarily fall under the term	"article or things of any description whatsoever"	occurring in	Rule 114(3)(h) of the Defence of India Rules 1971	and both of them fix the maximum price at	which dealers	can sell the fertilizer. The Central Government's	notification dated 1.6.1974 applies to the whole country	while the impugned notification dated 14.6.1974 of the State Government	can apply only to the State of Uttar Pradesh.
The appellants' attack on the impugned notification is two-fold. The first ground of attack forcibly urged by Mr.
P. Govindan Nair, Senior Counsel appearing for one set of appellants is that the	impugned notification is altogether invalid in law and non est on the ground that the State Government has no power whatsoever to issue the notification under the Defence of India Rules in respect of an essential commodity, fertilizer,	covered by the Central Government's notification issued under the	Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957, made in	exercise of the power conferred by	the Essential Commodities Act. The second ground of attack urged by Mr.	Yogeshwar Prasad, Senior Counsel appearing for the other set of appellants is based on	Article	14 of	the Constitution, namely,	that it is	discriminatory	and, therefore, bad	in law.	Mr. S.C. Manchanda, Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents	in all the appeals naturally submitted that	there is no substance	in any	of these two grounds.
The second	ground of attack projected by Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad may be taken up first for consideration. This ground has been considered by the learned Judges of the High Court as the	fifth ground of attack before them at pages 29 to 31 of the	paper book in Civil Appeals 1568-1576 of 1974, and rejected by them. The submission of Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad is that some governmental agencies falling	within	the definition of "dealer" in the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 were permitted by	the State Government to sell	the fertilizer carried over from the stock held at the close of 31.5.1974 at the new enhanced rate of Rs. 2000 per ton fixed in the	Central Government's notification dated 1.6.1974 and that it	is discriminatory against the	private dealers who are required by the impugned notification to sell at the old rate of	Rs. 1050 per ton fixed in the Central Government's old notification dated 11.10.1973. To	show that such a direction was given by the State Government, Mr. Yogeshwar 374 Prasad invited attention to the first sentence in	the radiogram 23.7.1974 issued by	the Chief Secretary to	the Government of Uttar Pradesh. That sentence reads as follows : "All	stocks	of fertilizer	available with ASO,	AGRO Cooperatives and Cane Unions be distributed without	any condition regarding purchase of fertilizers at new rates".
It is not possible to make out what exactly was intended to be conveyed by that sentence	in the	radiogram. In	the counter-affidavit of the Accounts Officer, Fertilizers and Manures Directorate of	Agriculture, Government of Uttar Pradesh, filed	in C.M.P. 6773 of 1974 on the file of this Court, it is stated that the	State	Government has	not allowed any State owned agency to sell the stocks of fertilizer carried over from 31.5.1974 at the rates fixed in the Central Government's notification	dated 1.6.1974, that the radiogram was not meant to permit Agricultural Supplies Organisation and the Agro Industrial corporation and other governmental agencies to sell	the stocks carried over from 31.5.1974 at the revised rates and that it was issued to remove only the condition. There is no other material on the record to show that any direction was given	by the State Government for the governmental agencies to sell	the fertilizer carried over from 31.5.1974 at the enhanced rate fixed in the	Central Government's	notification dated 1.6.1974. Therefore, the very basis of the contention of Mr.
Yogeshwar Prasad that there is any discrimination against private dealers	like the appellants	represented by	him compared with governmental agencies in the matter of	the sale price of fertilizer has not been established. Even if any such direction had been given, it would certainly be bad in law	as being discriminatory. It would not, however, invalidate the impugned notification which per se applies to all dealers of fertilizers in the entire State of Uttar Pradesh, whether private or governmental. Consequently, the impugned notification of the State Government cannot be held to be bad in law on the ground of discrimination if it is otherwise valid. Mr. Manchanda	relied upon the aforesaid counter-affidavit in support of his contention that there is no basis for the contention that there is any discrimination against	private dealers. The second ground of attack projected by Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad fails and has been rightly rejected by the learned Judges of the High Court.
The first	ground is as regards the power of the State Government to	issue	the impugned	notification dated 14.6.1974, fixing for the sale of fertilizers by dealers to consumers a price different from the	one fixed in	the Central	Government's notification dated 1.6.1974.	In considering this question the fact that the notification was issued by the State Government with the object of preventing dealers in the State 375 of Uttar Pradesh from	driving under excessive profit from agricultural consumers in respect of the fertilizer which had been purchased by	the dealers at Rs.1005 per ton under the old	Central Government's notification dated 11.10.1973 and that it applies to the fertilizer which was in stock at the end	of 31.5.1974,	should not weigh with the Court, for the question is of the power	of the	State Government to issue the notification. The question is whether the State Government has	power to fix the price of fertilizer under the Defence of India Rules, 1971, framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the Defence of India Act, 1971 after the Central Government had already	fixed the price under	the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 made in exercise of	the power conferred	by the	Essential Commodities Act, 1955. If in law	the State Government could fix the price in respect of the	limited stock	of fertilizer	carried over	from 31.5.1974, it can certainly fix the price of the fertilizer received by the dealers even after 1.6.1974 in respect of which the Central Government's	notification dated 1.6.1974 would undoubtedly apply.
The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in an enactment passed by Parliament to provide, in the interest of	the general public,	for the control of the production, supply and distribution and	trade	and commerce	in certain commodities which have been notified	under that Act as essential commodities.	The very object of the Essential Commodities Act	is to	check the inflationary trends in prices and to ensure the equitable distribution of essential commodities. Section 1(2) of that Act makes it applicable to the whole of India. It is a permanent enactment in the sense that its operation is	not restricted to any particular period. The Fertilizer (Control) order, 1957 has been made in exercise of the power conferred by s.3(2)(c) of	the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for controlling the price at which any essential commodity may be bought or sold.
Fertilizer has	been declared to be an essential commodity under s.2(a)(xi) of	the Essential	Commodities Act as mentioned above. Therefore,	the price fixed in	the notification issued under the	Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 squarely applies to fertilizer. The Defence of India Act, 1971 also is an Act of Parliament which was intended to provide for special measures to ensure the public safety and interest, the defence of India and civil defence and for the trial of certain offences	and for matters connected therewith. That Act also extended to the whole of India, but under s.1(3), it came	into force at once and remained in force during the period of operation of the Proclamation of Emergency and for a period of	six months thereafter. Sub- clause (a) of Sub-section (3) of s. 1 saves anything duly done under the Act as if the 376 Act had	not expired. As stated earlier the Emergency which was in	force	when	the State Government's impugned notification dated 14.6.1974 was issued, was lifted on 22.3.1977. The	life of	the Defence of India Act, 1971 thus extended upto six months after 22.3.1977. In that way the Defence of India Act,	1971	was a	temporary enactment intended to be in operation for only a limited period.
The Defence of India Rules, 1971	had been issued in exercise of the power	conferred by s.3 of the Defence of India Act, 1971. Under	Rule 114(2) of those Rules, if the Central Government or the State Government is of opinion that it	is necessary or expedient so to do for securing the defence of India and civil defence, the efficient conduct of military operations or the maintenance or	increase of supplies and services essential to the life of the community or for	securing the equitable distribution and availability of any	article or thing at fair prices, it may, by order, provide	for regulating or prohibiting the	production, manufacture, supply and distribution, use and consumption of articles or things and	trade and commerce therein or for preventing any	corrupt practice or abuse of authority in respect of any such matter.
Sub-rule (3)(h) of Rule 114 said that without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by sub-rule (2) an order made thereunder may provide for controlling the prices or rates at which articles or	things of any	description whatsoever may	be sold or hired or for relaxing any maximum or minimum limits otherwise imposed on such prices or rates.
The State Government's impugned notification has	been issued,	as already stated,	in exercise of the power conferred by this sub-rule of Rule 114.
The Central Government had already assumed power under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to control the price of essential commodities including fertilizer as a permanent measure, and could do	under the provisions of that Act in relation to that essential commodity what it may do under the Defence of India Act, 1971, a temporary	measure, if fertilizer could be	brought	under	the description of "articles or things of	any description whatsoever".	But since it had already assumed the power under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to control the price of fertilizer it was not necessary for it to get itself armed once again with the power to control	the price of	the same essential commodity under	the Defence of India	Act, 1971 which came about 16 years later. Therefore, the contention of Mr.
377 Govindan Nair that the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is a special enactment relating to only essential commodities and the Defence of India Act, 1971 is a general enactment relating to all other	commodities, and that the words "articles or things of any description whatsoever" occurring in Rule 114(3)(h) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971 cannot be understood to include essential commodities has force and has to	be accepted. It cannot be assumed that Parliament which had already legislated in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, a permanent	measure, in respect of fertilizer intended to legislate once again and	could have felt the need to	legislate once	again in the temporary Defence of India Act, 1971 in respect of the same article, especially because what could be	done under the Defence of India Act and the	Rules which may be framed thereunder could as well be done with equal force under the Essential Commodities Act and orders which may be passed thereunder. Therefore, the contention that the State Government has no power to fix the price of essential commodities	covered by the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 in exercise of the power conferred on it by Rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971 issued under the Defence of India Act, 1971 is well-founded and has to be accepted.
Section 3(2)(c) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, pursuant to which the	Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 has been made says that without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by sub-section	(1) an	order	made thereunder may	provide for controlling the price at which any essential commodity may be brought or sold. This sub- clause of s.3 of the Essential Commodities Act has not left anything to be done under the Defence of India Act, 1971 in the matter of fixation	of price of any essential commodity whether it be for securing any essential commodity for the defence of India or for the effective military operation or for securing the equitable distribution and availability of essential commodities at fair prices or distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein as envisaged in s.3(1) of that Act.
If the State Government felt that there was any special circumstance to	be taken into account for fixing the price of the essential commodity fertilizer, in the State of Uttar Pradesh at a rate lower than	the one fixed by the Central Government in its notification dated 1.6.1974, it could have achieved that object by getting steps to be taken under the Essential Commodities Act itself. Section 3(2) of that Act lays down that the Central Government may, having regard 378 to the	local conditions of any area and other relevant circumstances, fix different prices or rates in respect of different areas	and for different classes of consumers. The State Government could have requested the Central Government to act under s.3(2) of the Essential Commodities Act and fix a different price or rate for	the sale by dealers in that State of fertilizer carried over from	the stock held on 31.5.1974. Section 5(b) of the Essential Commodities	Act provides for delegation of powers and says that the Central Government may,	by notified order, direct that the power to make or issue notifications under s.3 of that Act shall, in relation to such matters and subject to such conditions, if any, as	may be specified in the direction be exercisable also by	such State or such officer or authority subordinate to a State Government as may be specified in the direction.
The Central Government has not issued	any direction under s.5(b) of the Essential Commodities Act delegating its power to issue notification under s.3 of that Act	to the State Government or any officer or authority of that Government.
The State Government has thus not resorted to the provisions contained in s.3(2) or	s.5(b) of the Essential Commodities Act, but has proceeded to fix the price of fertilizer on its own under the Defence	of India Rules, 1971 which it cannot do under those Rules and the Defence of India Act, 1971 in respect of the essential commodity.
Section 6	of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 saves any order made under s.3 of that Act from the impact of any other enactment. It is not possible to accept the contention that the other Act or enactment referred to in s.6 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 would be only the Act or enactment which	was in force on the date of commencement of that Act and not any future Act or Acts. This contention has been wrongly rejected by the learned	Judges of the	High Court. Section	6 of the Essential Commodities Act says that an order made under s. 3 shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than that Act or any instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment other than that Act. It is true that there is a similar saving provision in s.37 of the Defence of India Act, 1971 which says	that the provisions of that Act or	any Rule made thereunder or any order made under any such Rule shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than that Act or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment other	than that Act. But as stated	above,	the Defence	of India Act, 1971,	which	was a	general	and temporary Act and the	Rules framed thereunder cannot apply to fertilizer which is an essential commodity governed 379 by the	Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 made under the provisions of that Act.
Therefore, the	State Government cannot without delegation issue any notification under the Defence of India Act and Rules,	1971 in regard to the price of fertilizer an essential commodity governed by the Essential	Commodities Act and	the Fertilizer	(Control) order, 1957. The learned Advocate-General of the State was perhaps fully conscious of the legal position that the State Government cannot fix the price of an essential	commodity by any notification under the Defence of India Rules, 1971 in the circumstances when he took	the patently unacceptable stand before the learned Judges of the High Court that the State Government did not in fact fix the price of fertilizer in its impugned notification dated 14.6.1974 but it only directed	that certain stock of fertilizer which was in the possession of dealers at the end of 31.5.1974 and was carried over by them shall be sold at the rate fixed in the Central Government's earlier	notification dated 11.10.1973, which as stated above, has been specifically superseded by its subsequent notification dated 1.6.1974. If the State Government had not fixed the price at which fertilizer can be sold be dealers by the impugned notification dated 14.6.1974 though it is no doubt in respect of the stock carried over from 31.5.1974, one fails to see what else it did or why it was considered necessary. Therefore, the learned Judges of the High Court have rightly	rejected that	submission of	the learned Advocate-General.
As	stated	above, trade	and commerce	in and	the production, supply and distribution of the products of any industry where	the control of such industry by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest fall under entry 33 of the Concurrent List III, and trade and commerce within	the State subject to	the provisions of Entry 33 in the Concurrent List III fall under Entry 26 of List II	of the Seventh Schedule to	the Constitution.	If the State Government's impugned notification is	assumed to be a law enacted by that State's Legislature on	Entry 26 of List II,	since	the Act of Parliament passed on Entry 33 of List III and the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 passed under that Act were already in force, the assent of the President had to be received in order that the State Government's notification assumed to be a law enacted by the State's Legislature may prevail in the State as required by Article 254(2) of the	Constitution which reads thus:
Provided that nothing in this clause 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 Legislature of the State." There is nothing on record to show that the impugned notification of	the State Government was placed before the President for his assent and	that his assent has	been received. Therefore,	the State Government's impugned notification even as a	law cannot prevail over the earlier notification of the Central Government.
The learned Judges of the High Court were not right in rejecting the submission made	before them that there is conflict between the	two notifications of	the Central Government dated 1.6.1974 and of the State Government dated 14.6.1974 and in holding that	the State Government	has unfettered power under the Defence of India Act, 1971 to fix the price of	fertilizer and regulate	its supply notwithstanding the fact that	fertilizer is an essential commodity under	the Essential	Commodities Act, 1955 in observing and that what the Central Government can do under the Fertilizer	(Control) Order, 1957 the State Government can do	under the Defence of India Rules, 1971. There is a clear conflict	between the two notifications in respect of the same essential commodity,	fertilizer, for under	the Central Government's notification dated 1.6.1974 the price at which a dealer can sell fertilizer of the concerned variety	is Rs. 2000	per ton while under the State Government's notification dated 14.6.1974 it is only	Rs.
1050 per ton though no doubt it is restricted to the stock carried over from 31.5.1974 which is immaterial in judging the power of the State Government to fix the price of an essential commodity by a notification made under the Defence of India Rules, 1971	in respect of	which	the Central Government had	already fixed the price under the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957. Once the Central enactment and the Central Government's notification govern the price of an essential commodity the State Government's notification issued in exercise of	the delegated authority under	the Defence of India Act and the Rules framed thereunder cannot prevail. The Two enactments have 381 to be read in	such a way that there is no conflict between them while giving effect to them in their respective fields of operation. On the question of conflict and interpretation of statutes, we find the following passage in Craies on Statute Law (seventh edition) at page 222:
"Acts	of Parliament	sometimes contain general enactments relating to the whole subject-matter of the statute, and also specific and particular enactments relating to certain special matters; and if the general and specific enactments	prove	to be	in any	way repugnant to one another,	the question	will arise, which is to control the other ? In Pretty v. Solly(1) Romilly M.R. stated as follows what he considered to be the rule of construction under such circumstances. "The general rules," said he,	"which	are applicable to particular and general enactments in statutes are very clear; the only difficulty is in their application. The rule is, that whenever there is a particular enactment and a general enactment in the same statute, and the latter, taken in its most comprehensive	sense, would over rule	the former, the particular enactment must be operative, and the general enactment must be taken to affect only the other parts of the statute to which it may properly apply".
The following passage found at page 187 of the twelfth edition of Maxwell on	the Interpretation of Statutes	may also be noticed:
"If two sections of the	same	statute	are repugnant,	the known rule is that the last	must prevail". But, on the general principle that an author must be supposed not to have intended to contradict himself, the Court will endeavour to construe	the language of the legislature in such a way as to avoid having to	apply the rule, leges posteriors priores contrarias abrogant. For	example, the provision in order 47 of the Country Court Rules 1936 that	"the scale of costs in	an action for the recovery of a sum of money only shall be determined.... as regards the costs of the plantiff, by the amount recovered" was not construed as peremptory, for this would have brought it out of harmony with the earlier provision in the same order that "the costs of proceedings in a Country Court shall be in the discretion of the Court." 382 One way in which repugnancy can be avoided is by regarding	two apparently	conflicting provisions as dealing with distinct matters or situations." There will be clear conflict	between the	two notifications if it is understood that the State Government also can fix the price of any essential commodity covered by the Essential Commodities Act, 1955	and the Fertilizer (Control) order, 1957 in exercise of the power conferred on it by the Defence of India Act, 1971	and the Defence of India Rules, 1971. The conflict can be avoided only if it is held that the	Essential Commodities	Act, 1955 and	the Fertilizer (Control)	order,	1957 deal with essential commodities and	the Defence of India	Act, 1971 and	the Defence of India Rules, 1971 deal with all other articles and things of any description whatsoever. The author of the two enactments, Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Defence of India Act, 1971 is the same, namely, Parliament,	and Parliament must	be held to have not intended to contradict itself while dealing with distinct matters or situations under those enactments. If the State Governments are free to fix their own prices in notifications issued by them under the Defence of India Rules, 1971	when	the Central Government's notification fixing a single price for	the whole country in respect of an essential commodity is in force that notification of the Central Government	will become otiose. The question is whether Parliament would have intended such a consequence. The answer can	only be an emphatic no. That situation has to be clearly avoided by a proper	interpretation	of the	respective powers of	the Central and State Governments	under the two Acts, and by holding that the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the Fertilizer (Control)	order,	1957 deal with essential commodities and	the Defence of India	Act, 1971 and	the Defence of India Rules, 1971 dealt with all other commodities notwithstanding that fact	that Rule 114(3)(h) mentions "articles or things of any description whatsoever".
"To determine if a	later	statutory provision repeals by implication an earlier one it is accordingly necessary to closely scrutinize and consider the true meaning and effect both of the earlier and the later statute. Until this is done it cannot be satisfactorily ascertained if any fatal inconsis- 383 tency exists between them. The	meaning, scope	and effect of	the two statutes, as discovered on scrutiny, determine the legislative intent	as to	whether	the earlier law shall cease or shall only be supplemented.
If the objects of	the two statutory provisions	are different	and the language of each	statute is restricted to its own objects or subject, then they are generally intended	to run	in paralleled lines without meeting and there would be no real conflict though apparently it may appear	to be so on the surface.
Statutes in pari materia although in apparent conflict should also so far as reasonably possible, be construed to be in harmony	with each other and it is only when there is an irreconcilable conflict between the	new provision and the prior statute relating	to the same subject matter, that the former, being the later expression of the legislature, may be held to prevail, the prior law yielding to the extent of the conflict".
If	the Essential Commodities	Act, 1955 and	the Fertilizer (Control) order, 1957 are considered to apply exclusively to	fertilizer, an	essential commodity, and the Defence of India Act,	1971 and the Defence of India Rules, 1971 are considered to apply to other commodities excluding essential commodities there would be no conflict whatsoever between the Essential Commodities Act and the Defence of India Act and between the	notifications issued under Fertilizer (Control) order, 1957 and the Defence of India Rules, 1971. If that is not done there will be real conflict between the two and, therefore, the two Acts	must be so construed as to avoid	conflict in the manner indicated above.
Mr. Manchanda invited attention to the following observation in Zaverbhai Amaidas v. The State of Bombay(1) "It is true, as already pointed out, that	on a question under article	254(1)	whether	an Act of Parliament prevails against a law of the State, no question of repeal arises; but the principle on which the rule of implied repeal rests, namely, that if the subject-matter of	the later legislation is identical with that	of the	earlier, so that they	cannot both stand together, then the	earlier is repealed by	the later enactment	will be equally applicable to a question under article 254(2) whether	the further legislation by Parliament is in 384 respect of the same matter as that of the State law.' 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 to 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	Government's	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 already stated.
Relying upon the above decision in Zaverbhai Amaidas v.
The State of Bombay (supra) Mr. Manchanda made a half- hearted	plea	that the impugned	State	Government's 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 purchased 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 Government's 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 385 to this	Court's orders	dated 2.9.1974	and 30.10.1974. The respondents shall pay the appellants' costs. There will be one set	of advocate's fees in the batch of appeals in which the appellants	are represented	by Mr.	Govindan Nair	and another set of advocate's fees in the other set of appeals in which Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad appears for the appellants.