Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a challenge to the Haryana Rice Bran (Distribution and Price) Control Order, 1967, which regulated the sale of rice bran. The appellants, dealers in rice and rice bran, contended that rice bran was not an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and thus the regulation was invalid. The High Court dismissed their writ petition, leading to an appeal in the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether rice bran could be classified as an essential commodity. The court analyzed the definitions provided in the Act, particularly focusing on the terms 'foodstuff' and 'cattle fodder.' It concluded that rice bran, being a by-product of rice milling and commonly used as feed for poultry and cattle, fell within the definition of foodstuff. The court emphasized that the term 'foodstuff' should not be limited to human consumption but should include any substance that sustains life for any living being. The court referenced dictionary definitions to support its reasoning, asserting that the regulation of rice bran was justified under the Act. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision without costs.
Headnote
A) Essential Commodities Act - Definition of Essential Commodity - Rice Bran as Foodstuff - Essential commodity includes rice bran as it is a foodstuff under section 2(a)(v) of the Act - The court held that rice bran, commonly used as poultry and cattle feed, is a foodstuff and thus an essential commodity, allowing regulation under section 3. (Paras 198-200)
Issue of Consideration
Whether rice bran qualifies as an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's ruling that rice bran is an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, allowing for its regulation.
Law Points
- Essential Commodities Act
- definition of essential commodity
- regulation of foodstuffs
- interpretation of foodstuff
- cattle fodder
