Rice dealers challenged rice and paddy movement Control Orders issued under s. 3(2)(d) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as discriminatory, lacking recital of government opinion, imposing unreasonable restrictions, and suffering excessive delegation. The Supreme Court rejected all contentions and dismissed the writ petition and appeals with costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
871
1
A
CHINTA LINGAM & ORS.
v.
GO'.ERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS.
November 30, 1970
8
'1· C. SHAH, G. K. MITTER, K, S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER
AND A. N. RAY, JJ.]
Ess.ntial C:ommoditi~s. Act, 1955 (Act 10 of 1'955), s, 3{1) and s. 3(2)(d)-0piniqn of Central Government under s. 3(1) wheth_er must be recited in Control Order-Order whether invalid without such recitalSection 3(2) (d) whether suffers from excessive delegation-Absence of c provision· for appec.·l or re1:ision against order of District Collector or Deputy Commission.er of Civil Supplies whether creates unreasonable restrlction on· the right to carry on business under Constitution of India. Art. '!9(1) (/).
Practice-Plea for whii:h adequate foundation has not been laid in the pleadings could not he entertained.
D The appellants who were adversely affected by the Rice (Southern Zone) Movement Control Order. 1957, the Southern States (Regulation of Exports of Rice) Order, 1964, and the Andhra Pradesh Rice· and Paddy (Restriction of Movement) Order 1965, moved petitions under Art. 226 of th1t Constitution of India in the High Court of Andhra Pra· desh challenging the validity of these orders. The petitions were dismissed by the High Court.. In appeal before this Court by special leave as well as in a writ petition under Art. 3.2 of the Constitution the follow- E ing contentions we're advanced before this Court : ( i) The said Control Orders offended Art. 303 of the Constitution in as much as they suffered from the vice of discrimination between one State and another and of preference to one State over an other; (ii) the orders were in the nature of executive instructions and did not fall within the meaning of subordinate legislation; (iii) even if they cculd be regarded as subordinate legislation they could not be saved under s. 303 ( 2) in the absence of the declaration contemplated thereby; (iv) the requisite opinion of the Cen- F tral Government within s. 3 (I) of the Essential Supplies Act was not found in any of the orders; (v) the Control Orders imposed unreasonable restrictions on the right of the petitioners to carry on trade, as arbitrary, powers had l>een conferred in the matter of issuing or withholding permits and there were no provisions for appeal or revision against refusal to grant a permit; (vi) s. 3(2)(d) suffers from excessive delegation.
G
H
HELD : ( i) The first three contentions could not be· entertained since no firm foundation had l>een laid in respect of them in the pleadings. [875 G-876 B}
(ii) There was no 0ecessity of reciting the requisite opinion within s. 3 (I) of the Act in the Control Orders. U is implicit in the recital in the CC>ntrol Ql-ders that they were being m:ide undet s. 3 of the Act, that the Central Government had formed the requisite .:ipinion within subs-s. (I) of that section. [876 B-CJ
(iii) The permit could be granted either by the State Government or by responsible officers of the rank of the District Collector or the Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies. If the State Government alone
872
[1971] 2 $.C.R
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
•
had the power, to issue the permits the challenge ·on the ground of A unreasonableness of the restrictions would admittedly not be available. There IS no ba'r to any of the aggrieved parties approaching the State 'Government by means of a representation for a final decision even if the mtter has bee ,dealt with by the District Collector or the Deputy Commissioner of CIVll Supphes m the first instance and the permit has been refused or wrongly withheld by those officers, In these circumstances the absence of a provision for appeal or revision can be of no consequenc~. B It has been pointed out in more than one decision of this Court that when ·the power has to be exercised by one of the highest officers the fact that .no appeal has been provided for is a matter of no moment.
A
[876 D-877 BJ
MI s. Dwarka Prasad L<xmi Nai·ain v. State of Uttar Pradesh & :2 Ors. [1954) S.C.R. 803, K. L: Gupta v .. Bomb•y Municipal Corporation .&: Ors. [19'68) I S.C.R. Z14, 297 and Pannalal Binjraj v, Union of India, c [1957) S.C.R, 233, 257, referred to.
(iv) The question whether s. 3(2) (d) suffers from the vice of excessive delegation was no longer at large. In Bhana Mal Gulzari Mal's case the attack on s. 3 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 which was similar in terms to s. 3 of the Act on the ground of exc.essive delegation was repelled. It was held that the Central Governi11ent had been given :;uffi.cient and µroper guidance for exercising its powers in effectuating the policy of. the statute. [877 D-E]
D
Union of India & Ors. v. Mis. Bhana Mal Gulzari Mal & Ors., IJ960] 2 S.C.R. 627, applied.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 212 of 1969.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the ·enforcement of fundamental rights and
E
Civil Appeals Nos. 1802 w 1805 of 1969.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 16, 1968 0>f the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petitions Nos .. 3657 and 3658 of 1967 and 8 and 48 of 1968.
F
Shyama/a Pappu, Bindra Thakur and Vineet Kumar, for the petitioners and the appellants,
Ja[Ji!c!ish Swarup, Solicitor-General and R. N. Sacll!liey, fur respondent No. 1 (in all the matters).
G
P. Ram Reddy and A. V. V. Nair, for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (in C.A. No. 1802 of 1969), respondellt No. 2 (in C.As. Nos. 1803 and 1804 of 1969) and respo1ndents Nos. 2 to 4 (in C.A. No. 1805 of 1969).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
Grover, J. The points involved in the writ petition and the appeals by special leave refate to the constitutionality and validity
CHINTA LINGA v. GOVT. OF INDIA (Grover,!.) 873
The Control Orders which· were promulgated under s. 3 ( 2) . B ( d) of the Act were the following :
In the appeals the appellants had moved the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Art. 226 of the Constitution. There the petitioner~ were dealers in rice and rice products such as puffed, parched and beaten rice (beaten r;ce is known as 'powa· while, .D parched and puffed dee is known as 'Murmura'). Some of the petitioners had applied for permits to export powa, murmura and idlirava from the State of Andhra Pradesh ·to other States while others had applied for permits to transport one or other of the ,.··\ rice products to some places within Andhra Pradesh. The applications for permits were either rejected or were not disposed of ·E by the authorities concerned. In the writ petitions the High Court examined all the contentions raised exhaustively and repelled the .·ttaek pn the constitutionality of s. 3(2) (d) of the Act as also the relevant cfauses of the Control Orders.
Section 3 of the Act provides :
H
(1971] 2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
874
A •
(c) ( d) for regulating by licences, permits or otherwise the storage, transport, distribution, disposal, acquisition, ase or consumption of, any essential commodity;
The 1957 Control Order extends to the States of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Madras, Mysore and Pondicherry which has been called the Southern Zone. According to cl. 3 ( 1) no person can export or attempt to export or abet the export of rice from any place within the Southern Zone except under and in accordance with a permit issued by the State Government concerned or any officer authorised in this behalf by that Government subject to the condition that such export shall be regulated in accordance with the export quotas fixed by the Central Government. Now this control orde! made a division into Southern Zone or regions in the matter of export of rke. By the Control Order of 1964 the Southern Zone or region< werr further divided into four specified are".s i.e., States of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Madras and Mysore. Clause 3 of this order prohibited the export by any person of rice from any place within a specified area to a place outside that area except under and in accordance with the permit issued by the S:ate Government or an officer authorised by that Government in that behalf. The rice was defined by cl. 2 (b) to include broken rice. and paddy as also broken rice and paddy products other than bran or husk. The Con~rol Order of 1965 imposed further restrictions on the movement of rice and paddy. By clause 3 restrictions were placed on the movement of these commodities from any place in any block to any place outside that block even within the State of Andhra Pradesh.
B.
E.
·-
,
Mrs. Shyamala Pappu on behalf of the writ petitioners and the appellants be{ore us made an attempt to raise the following contentions in respect of the Control Orders :
CHJNTA LINGA v. GOVT. OF INDIA (Grav.er, J.): 875
A 4. The requisite opinion of the Central Government within- s. 3 ( 1) of the Act was not to be found in any ot the Orders.
An. 30 I in Part XIII of the. Constituion declares that subject to the other provisions of this Part trade, commerce" and interc course throughout the territory of India shall be tree. Under Art. 302 Parliament may by law impose such restrictions on. freedom of trade. commerce or intercour>e between one State and another or within any part of the territory of India as may be· reqmred in the public interest. Article 303 reads :-
[ 1971] 2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
876
point of preference to one State over another or discrimination between one State and another State there is compiete absence of pleading in the writ petition filed before us. The High Court adverted to the matter but we have not been shown that my proper or firm foundation was laid in the writ petitions l;>ef0re the High Court on the question of preference or discrimirrarion within Art. 303 ( 1). No argt1ment, therefore. can be entertained on these matters. We are unable to see the necessity of reciting the requisite opinion within s. 3 (I) of the Act in the Control/Orders. It is implicit in the recital in !he Control Orders that they were being macie under s. 3 of the Act that the Central Government Jiad formed the requisite opinion within sub-s. ( l} of that section. This disposes of the first four contentions.
As regards the 5th point it is noteworthy that the permit 1s to be issued by the State Government concerned or any officer authorised in this behalf by that Government. It is common ground that the officers autho.rised by the. State Government are the District Collector and the Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies. These of!icers cannot but be regarded as fairly high in rank who are expected to discharge their duties in a responsible and reasonable manner. Jn Messrs. Dwarka Prasad La.rmi Narain v. The State of Utta1 Pradesh & 2 .Others(') in which the provisions of cl. 4(3) of the U.P. Coal Control Order 1953 which gave the licensing authority absolute power" to, grant or refuse to grant any licence were struck down on the ground that a law which confers arbitraty and uncontrolled power upon the executive in the matter of regulating trade or business in normally available commodities must be held to be unreasonable. There the power could be exercised by any person to whom the State Coal Controller might choose to delegate the same. The matter which has been stressed before us relates generally to the absence of any prov]sion relating to appeal or revision in the Control Orders. if the District Collector or the Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies refuses to grant a permit under clause 3 of the Order. Tn Dwarka Prasad's(') case the delegation could be made to any one which was certainly a relevant factor in judging the reasonableness of the impugned provision. But in the cases before us the permit is to be granted either by the State Government or by responsible officers of the rank of the District. Collector or the Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies. Indeed, Mrs. Pappu quite properly agreed that if the State Government alone had the powrr to issue the permits the challenge on the gronnd of unreasonableness of the restrictions would not be available. We consider that there is no bar to any of the aggrieved parties approaching the State Government by means of a representation
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H.
(1) [l954] S.CR. 803.
CHJNTA LINGA v. GOVT. OF INDIA (Grover, J.; 877
Appeals dismissed~
ii) [196S] I S.C.R. ~74 at p. 297. (2) [t957] S.C.R. 233 at p. 257' 13) [1960] 2 S.C.R. 627.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the three rice movement Control Orders offended Article 303 or lacked the requisite Central Government opinion under s. 3(1) of the Essential Commodities Act.
Whether absence of appeal or revision against refusal of permits imposed unreasonable restrictions on trade under Art. 19(1)(g).
Whether s. 3(2)(d) of the Essential Commodities Act suffered from excessive delegation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Messrs. Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & 2 OthersReferred¶85
[1954] S.C.R. 803 · Who else cites this
K. L. Gupta v. The Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors.Referred¶97
[1968] I S.C.R. Z14, 297 · Who else cites this
Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of IndiaReferred¶97
[1957] S.C.R. 233, 257 · Who else cites this
The Union of India & Others v. Messrs. Bhana Mal Gulzari Mal & OthersApplied¶100
[1960] 2 S.C.R. 627 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Chinta Lingam & Ors.
Government of India & Ors.
C. Shah
G. K. Mitter
K. S. Hegde
A. N. Grover
A. N. Ray
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
