1970 (2) TMI 131 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Essential Supplies Act 1946 & Cotton Textiles Order 1948

HARISHANKAR BAGLA Versus STATE OF MP.

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Sections 3, 4, and 6 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, and the validity of the ... - Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of Sections 3 and 4 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 19462. Alleged excessive delegation of legislative power in Section 3 and 4 of the Act3. Interconnection of Section 3 with Section 6, and the validity of Section 64. Validity of the Cotton Textiles (Control of Movement) Order, 1948, in relation to existing laws, particularly the Indian Railways ActIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutionality of Sections 3 and 4 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946:The appellant argued that Sections 3 and 4 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, and the provisions of the Cotton Textiles (Control of Movement) Order contravened the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution. The court held that the requirement of a permit to transport essential commodities was a reasonable restriction in the public interest, especially during an emergency period. The Act aimed to ensure an equitable distribution and availability of essential commodities at fair prices, which justified the restrictions imposed. The High Court's decision to uphold the constitutionality of Sections 3 and 4 was affirmed.2. Alleged Excessive Delegation of Legislative Power in Section 3 and 4 of the Act:The appellant contended that Section 3 of the Act involved excessive delegation of legislative power. The court referred to the majority judgment in the Delhi Laws Act case, which held that essential legislative functions cannot be delegated. However, it was determined that the legislature had laid down a clear principle for maintaining or increasing the supply of essential commodities and ensuring their equitable distribution at fair prices. The delegation of powers to the Central Government was within permissible limits and provided sufficient guidance for the exercise of those powers. Section 4, which allowed further delegation to subordinate authorities, was also upheld as it enumerated the classes of persons to whom the power could be delegated, aligning with the principles established in Shannon v. Lower Mainland Dairy Products Board.3. Interconnection of Section 3 with Section 6, and the Validity of Section 6:The High Court had declared Section 6 of the Act unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court found this to be an error. Section 6 stated that any order made under Section 3 would have effect notwithstanding any inconsistency with other enactments. The court clarified that Section 6 did not repeal or abrogate existing laws; it merely bypassed them where they were inconsistent with the orders made under Section 3. This did not amount to an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power, as the repeal by implication was a legislative act by Parliament itself, not by the delegate. Therefore, Section 6 was held to be constitutional.4. Validity of the Cotton Textiles (Control of Movement) Order, 1948, in Relation to Existing Laws:The appellant argued that the Control Order contravened Sections 27, 28, and 41 of the Indian Railways Act. The court found no direct conflict between the Control Order and the Railways Act. The requirement of a permit and the powers given to the Textile Commissioner did not supersede the provisions of the Railways Act but supplemented them. The Control Order aimed to regulate the transport of cotton textiles to ensure even distribution and fair pricing, which was a reasonable restriction. The court also dismissed the argument that the Textile Commissioner had unregulated and arbitrary discretion, noting that the appellants had not applied for a permit and thus could not claim arbitrary refusal.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Sections 3, 4, and 6 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, and the validity of the Cotton Textiles (Control of Movement) Order, 1948. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to proceed expeditiously with the case in accordance with the law.