State regulation of sugarcane supply upheld as distinct from sugar manufacture control, with no repugnancy or unconstitutional restriction found.

A State law regulating the supply and purchase of sugarcane was upheld because sugarcane was treated as raw material within the State's legislative field, distinct from Parliament's control over the sugar manufacturing industry. Repugnancy was rejected since the Central enactments and the State scheme operated in different areas, and no valid repeal of the State law was shown. The provisions were also sustained against article 14 because the Cane Commissioner's discretion was guided by statutory criteria, rules, consultation and appellate control. The co-operative sale and reserved-area arrangements were held to be voluntary and reasonable restrictions under articles 19, 31 and 301, so the challenge failed in full.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the U.P. Legislature had competence to enact the sugarcane regulation law despite the declaration of sugar industry as a controlled industry by Parliament; (ii) whether the State Act and the notifications were repugnant to the Central enactments and whether the State law stood repealed; (iii) whether the impugned provisions and notifications violated article 14; (iv) whether the requirement of sale through cane growers' co-operative societies and the reserved-area notifications infringed articles 19 and 31; and (v) whether the restrictions offended article 301.

Issue (i): Whether the U.P. Legislature had competence to enact the sugarcane regulation law despite the declaration of sugar industry as a controlled industry by Parliament.

Analysis: The legislative entries were construed by separating the raw material, the manufacturing process, and the finished product. Sugarcane was treated as raw material and as an item falling within the State's field governing production, supply and distribution of goods. The Central declaration under the controlled-industries entry was held to concern the industry of sugar manufacture, not the regulation of sugarcane as such. The State enactment was confined to sugarcane supply and purchase and did not trench upon licensing or control of sugar manufacture.

Conclusion: The State Legislature had competence to enact the impugned law.

Issue (ii): Whether the State Act and the notifications were repugnant to the Central enactments and whether the State law stood repealed.

Analysis: Repugnancy was held to arise only where both laws operate in the same field or where the parliamentary law evidences an intention to cover the whole field. The Central industrial statute was held to regulate scheduled industries and not the supply of raw materials such as sugarcane. The essential commodities legislation was treated as concurrent legislation, but the State scheme and the Central scheme were found to occupy different areas in several respects, including price control and movement control. The repeal provisions in the later Central law were also construed as inapplicable to a State law which was not repugnant in the sense contemplated by the Constitution, and the delegated repeal clause in the control order was rejected.

Conclusion: No repugnancy or valid repeal was established against the State Act or the State notifications.

Issue (iii): Whether the impugned provisions and notifications violated article 14.

Analysis: The Cane Commissioner's powers were held to be structured by statutory criteria, rules prescribing relevant considerations, consultation requirements, and appellate control to the State Government. The existence of these safeguards showed that the discretion was not arbitrary or uncontrolled.

Conclusion: There was no infringement of article 14.

Issue (iv): Whether the requirement of sale through cane growers' co-operative societies and the reserved-area notifications infringed articles 19 and 31.

Analysis: The co-operative arrangement was treated as voluntary, with no compulsion to become a member or to continue membership beyond the society rules. The cane grower remained free not to sell to a factory and to dispose of cane otherwise. The restrictions were held to be reasonable, aimed at preventing unhealthy competition and protecting the interests of growers, and therefore protected by the constitutional standard governing reasonable restrictions. As no unconstitutional deprivation of property was shown, article 31 was also not violated.

Conclusion: The impugned provisions and notifications did not violate articles 19 or 31.

Issue (v): Whether the restrictions offended article 301.

Analysis: The freedom of trade and commerce was held to be subject to article 304(b), which permits reasonable restrictions in the public interest. The restrictions on cane sale and movement were found to be regulatory and reasonable rather than destructive of free trade.

Conclusion: Article 301 was not infringed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned State enactment and the connected notifications were upheld as constitutionally valid and effective, and the challenge to them failed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: A State law regulating the supply and purchase of a raw agricultural commodity is valid where it operates in a field distinct from the Union's control over the manufacture industry, and constitutional invalidity will not follow unless repugnancy, arbitrariness, or an unreasonable restriction is affirmatively shown.

---