Case Note & Summary
The case arose from writ petitions and appeals by special leave challenging the constitutional validity of three Control Orders issued under Section 3(2)(d) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, namely 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. The petitioners and appellants were dealers in rice and rice products such as puffed rice, parched rice and beaten rice. Some had applied for permits to export rice products from Andhra Pradesh to other states or to transport them within the state, but their applications were either rejected or not disposed of by the authorities. They challenged the Control Orders and Section 3(2)(d) of the Act before the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the petitions after exhaustively examining all contentions and upholding the constitutionality of Section 3(2)(d) and the relevant clauses of the Control Orders. Appeals by special leave and a writ petition under Article 32 were filed in the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants raised six contentions: first, that the Control Orders offended Article 303 by discriminating between states and preferring one state over another; second, that the orders were executive instructions and not subordinate legislation; third, that even if subordinate legislation, they were not saved by Article 303(2) in absence of declaration; fourth, that requisite Central Government opinion under Section 3(1) was not found in the orders; fifth, that restrictions were unreasonable due to arbitrary permit powers and no appeal or revision; and sixth, that Section 3(2)(d) suffered from excessive delegation. The Supreme Court held that the first three contentions could not be entertained because no firm foundation was laid in pleadings either before the High Court or in the writ petition before it. On the fourth contention, the Court held there was no necessity to recite the requisite opinion in the Control Orders, as it is implicit in the recital that orders were made under Section 3 that the Central Government had formed the requisite opinion. On the fifth contention, the Court observed that permits were issued by the State Government or authorised high officers like the District Collector or Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies, and aggrieved parties could approach the State Government by representation, so absence of appeal or revision was of no consequence. On the sixth contention, the Court followed Bhana Mal Gulzari Mal and held that Section 3(2)(d) did not suffer from excessive delegation, as the Central Government had sufficient guidance in the statute's policy. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and the writ petition, upholding the validity of the Control Orders and Section 3(2)(d) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Freedom of Trade and Commerce - Articles 301, 302, 303 Constitution of India - Control Orders made under Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and laid before Parliament constitute law under Article 302; absence of pleading foundation on public interest, discrimination or preference precluded challenge - Appellants contended the three Control Orders discriminated between states and preferred one state over another, but no firm foundation was laid in pleadings before High Court or Supreme Court; Court declined to entertain these contentions - Held that contentions under Articles 301-303 cannot be entertained without specific pleadings (pp. 875-876). B) Essential Commodities Act - Section 3(1) Opinion Requirement - No necessity to recite Central Government's opinion in Control Orders; recital that order made under Section 3 implies requisite opinion formed - Appellants argued requisite opinion under Section 3(1) was absent from orders; Court held it is implicit in recital that orders were made under Section 3 that Central Government had formed requisite opinion - Held that absence of express recital does not invalidate orders (p. 876 B-C). C) Constitutional Law - Article 19(1)(f) Reasonable Restrictions - Permit issued by State Government or high officers like District Collector and Deputy Commissioner; absence of appeal or revision not unreasonable - Appellants challenged arbitrary permit powers and lack of appeal/revision; Court noted officers are high in rank and aggrieved parties can approach State Government by representation for final decision - Held that absence of appeal provision is of no consequence when power vested in high officers (pp. 876-877). D) Constitutional Law - Excessive Delegation - Section 3(2)(d) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Delegation to regulate by licences, permits or otherwise not excessive; sufficient guidance in policy of Act - Question whether Section 3(2)(d) suffers from excessive delegation no longer at large; Bhana Mal Gulzari Mal applied to similar Section 3 of Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 - Held that Section 3(2)(d) is valid and does not suffer from excessive delegation (p. 877 D-E).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the three Control Orders issued under Section 3(2)(d) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 were constitutionally valid; whether Section 3(2)(d) itself suffered from excessive delegation; whether the orders offended Articles 301, 302 and 303 of the Constitution; whether recital of Central Government opinion under Section 3(1) was necessary; whether absence of appeal or revision provisions rendered restrictions unreasonable under Article 19(1)(f).
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and the writ petition. It upheld the constitutional validity of the three Control Orders and Section 3(2)(d) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Court held that contentions under Articles 301-303 could not be entertained due to absence of pleadings; no recital of opinion under Section 3(1) was necessary; absence of appeal or revision was not fatal as aggrieved parties could approach the State Government; and Section 3(2)(d) did not suffer from excessive delegation following Bhana Mal Gulzari Mal.
Law Points
- Necessity of reciting opinion under Section 3(1) of Essential Commodities Act
- 1955 not required
- recital that Control Order made under Section 3 implies requisite opinion
- Section 3(2)(d) does not suffer from excessive delegation
- absence of appeal or revision against permit refusal not unreasonable when power exercised by high officers
- aggrieved party may approach State Government by representation
- contentions not pleaded cannot be entertained
- Control Orders laid before Parliament constitute law under Article 302
