Permit control over essential commodities upheld as a reasonable restriction, with delegation and repugnancy challenges rejected.

A permit-based control on movement of cotton textiles was upheld as a reasonable restriction in the public interest, because it regulated transport of an essential commodity to secure supply, distribution, and fair pricing, rather than destroying the rights under Article 19(1)(f) and (g). Sections 3 and 4 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 were also sustained, since the Act itself laid down the policy and standard and delegated only administrative details within that framework. Section 6 and the impugned Order were held valid as a priority clause operating only against inconsistent laws, not as unconstitutional delegation or repeal, and no repugnancy with the Indian Railways Act was found.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the permit requirement in the Cotton Textiles (Control of Movement) Order, 1948, infringed the rights guaranteed by Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether Sections 3 and 4 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, amounted to unconstitutional delegation or sub-delegation of legislative power; and (iii) whether Section 6 of the Act, and the impugned Order made under it, were invalid for repugnancy or implied repeal of the Indian Railways Act.

Issue (i): whether the permit requirement in the Cotton Textiles (Control of Movement) Order, 1948, infringed the rights guaranteed by Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The restriction did not deprive a citizen of the right to dispose of property or carry on trade, but regulated transport of an essential commodity through permits in furtherance of supply, distribution, and fair pricing. In the context of an emergency measure intended to secure availability of essential commodities, the permit condition was treated as a control in the public interest and not as an unreasonable restraint.

Conclusion: The restriction was held to be constitutionally valid and was not in violation of Article 19(1)(f) or (g).

Issue (ii): whether Sections 3 and 4 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, amounted to unconstitutional delegation or sub-delegation of legislative power.

Analysis: The Act itself laid down the legislative policy, namely maintenance or increase of supply of essential commodities and securing their equitable distribution at fair prices. Section 3 authorized orders within that policy, while Section 4 merely identified classes of authorities to whom implementation could be entrusted. The essential legislative function was not surrendered, because the statute furnished the policy and standard, and the delegation operated only within that framework.

Conclusion: Sections 3 and 4 were held to be valid and not to involve excessive delegation.

Issue (iii): whether Section 6 of the Act, and the impugned Order made under it, were invalid for repugnancy or implied repeal of the Indian Railways Act.

Analysis: Section 6 did not repeal or abrogate prior laws; it gave precedence to orders under Section 3 only to the extent of inconsistency. The Court treated this as legislative adjustment of overlapping laws, not as an unconstitutional delegation of power to repeal. The textile control directions were also held not to directly conflict with the cited provisions of the Indian Railways Act, but to supplement them.

Conclusion: Section 6 and the impugned Order were held to be valid, and no invalidity arose from the Indian Railways Act.

Final Conclusion: The statutory control scheme was upheld in full, and the challenge to the constitutionality of the Act and the Order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute clearly states its policy and standard, delegation of administrative details and priority to subordinate orders over inconsistent pre-existing laws does not amount to unconstitutional delegation or repeal by a delegate, and a permit-based regulatory restriction on an essential commodity may be a reasonable restriction in the public interest.

---