Bombay High Court Quashes State Order on Solvent Licensing for Repugnancy with Central Order. Maharashtra Solvent Raffinate and Slop (Licensing) Order 2007 struck down as ultra vires the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 due to conflict with Central Order of 2000.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 94
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Petitioner, Indian Small Scale Paint Association Society, challenged the Maharashtra Solvent Raffinate and Slop (Licensing) Order 2007 as being repugnant to the Central Solvents, Raffinates & Slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage & Prevention of Automobile) Order, 2000 issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Petitioner's members are small-scale paint manufacturers who use solvents and other petroleum byproducts as raw materials. The Central Government had already issued an order under Section 3 of the EC Act regulating these commodities, and Section 5 of the EC Act provides that any State order repugnant to a Central order shall be void. The Court found that the State Order of 2007 imposed additional licensing requirements that conflicted with the Central Order of 2000, which did not require such licenses. The Court held that the Central Government had occupied the field, and the State Order was therefore ultra vires the EC Act. The Petition was allowed, and the State Order was quashed. The Court also noted that the State Order was not saved by any provision of the EC Act and that the doctrine of repugnancy applied.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Repugnancy - Doctrine of Occupied Field - Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Sections 3 and 5 - The State Order of 2007 requiring licensing for solvents, raffinates and slop was held repugnant to the Central Order of 2000 which already regulated the same commodities. The Central Government had occupied the field under Section 5 of the EC Act, leaving no room for parallel State legislation. Held that the State Order is ultra vires the EC Act and liable to be struck down (Paras 1-15).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Maharashtra Solvent Raffinate and Slop (Licensing) Order 2007 is repugnant to the Central Solvents, Raffinates & Slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage & Prevention of Automobile) Order, 2000 and therefore ultra vires the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Petition is allowed. The Maharashtra Solvent Raffinate and Slop (Licensing) Order 2007 is quashed and set aside as ultra vires the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Rule is made absolute.

Law Points

  • Repugnancy between State and Central orders under Essential Commodities Act
  • 1955
  • Doctrine of occupied field
  • Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act
  • Section 5 of Essential Commodities Act
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2015 LawText (BOM) (12) 27

Writ Petition No. 4029 of 2014

2015-12-15

A.S. Oka, G.S. Patel

Mr. Sheroo P. Kanuga for Petitioner, Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondents

Indian Small Scale Paint Association Society

State of Maharashtra, Secretary, Department of Food & Civil Supplies, Controller of Rationing, Collector of Districts

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ Petition challenging the legality and validity of the Maharashtra Solvent Raffinate and Slop (Licensing) Order 2007.

Remedy Sought

Quashing of the State Order as ultra vires the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Filing Reason

The State Order imposed licensing requirements on solvents, raffinates and slop, which were already regulated by a Central Order of 2000, creating repugnancy.

Issues

Whether the Maharashtra Solvent Raffinate and Slop (Licensing) Order 2007 is repugnant to the Central Solvents, Raffinates & Slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage & Prevention of Automobile) Order, 2000. Whether the State Order is ultra vires the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the Central Order of 2000 already regulated the same commodities and the State Order was repugnant and void under Section 5 of the EC Act. Respondents argued that the State Order was validly issued under the EC Act and did not conflict with the Central Order.

Ratio Decidendi

Under Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, any State order repugnant to a Central order issued under Section 3 is void. The Central Order of 2000 occupied the field regarding solvents, raffinates and slop, and the State Order of 2007 imposed additional licensing requirements, creating repugnancy. Hence, the State Order is ultra vires.

Judgment Excerpts

The challenge in this Petition is to the legality and validity of the Maharashtra Solvent Raffinate and Slop (Licensing) Order 2007. It is the case of the Petitioner that the impugned order is that there is an impermissible repugnancy between the State Order and the Central Order.

Procedural History

Notice issued on 14th October 2014 for final disposal at admission stage returnable on 24th November 2015. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard for final disposal.

Acts & Sections

  • Essential Commodities Act, 1955: Section 3, Section 5
  • Petroleum Act, 1934:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Revision Petition Under Section 264 of Income Tax Act Despite Retrospective Amendment After Assessment Order. Commissioner Must Consider Retrospective Amendment as Law Deemed to Exist on Date of Assessment Order.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes State Order on Solvent Licensing for Repugnancy with Central Order. Maharashtra Solvent Raffinate and Slop (Licensing) Order 2007 struck down as ultra vires the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 due to conflict with Central Or...