Price control for an essential commodity upheld where the measure stayed within statutory purpose and was not arbitrary or discriminatory.

A price control order for mustard oil issued under the Essential Commodities Act was treated as deriving protection from the parent enactment where the empowering provision itself was protected, provided the order remained within Section 3. Price fixation under Section 3(1) and Section 3(2)(c) was explained as a consumer-oriented measure to secure supply and equitable distribution at fair prices, and the Government could adopt a temporary, empirical policy even without assuring producer profit or strict cost parity. A common country-wide price was not invalid merely because regional costs differed, and the order was not shown to be patently discriminatory, unreasonable, or beyond statutory power.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Mustard Oil (Price Control) Order, 1977 enjoyed the protection of Article 31B of the Constitution of India as a measure made under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. (ii) Whether the price control order was invalid for violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India or for being outside Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Issue (i): Whether the Mustard Oil (Price Control) Order, 1977 enjoyed the protection of Article 31B of the Constitution of India as a measure made under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Analysis: The controlling provision of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was held to be protected by the Ninth Schedule, and the order was treated as an exercise of that protected power. On that view, a control order validly issued under the protected empowering provision was said to enjoy derivative protection so long as it stayed within the scope of Section 3 of the Act. The order itself was not treated as a separate legislative enactment, but as an incident of the protected source of power.

Conclusion: The order was held to be covered by the protection attached to the parent enactment, subject to remaining within the empowering provision.

Issue (ii): Whether the price control order was invalid for violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India or for being outside Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Analysis: Price fixation under Section 3(1) and Section 3(2)(c) was treated as a measure directed to maintaining supplies and securing equitable distribution at fair prices, with the consumer interest placed in the forefront. The order was found to fall within the statutory purpose because the Government could adopt a temporary, empirical and experimental price control policy even if it did not assure producer profit or cost-based parity. The Court held that the measure was neither patently discriminatory nor demonstrably unreasonable, and that the common country-wide price did not violate Article 14 merely because regional cost differences existed. It was also held that the order was within the scope of the Act and did not infringe the petitioners' constitutional rights.

Conclusion: The price control order was held valid and within the scope of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and no infringement of Articles 14, 19(1)(f) or 19(1)(g) was established.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the price control order failed, and the writ petitions were dismissed because the impugned measure was treated as a valid exercise of statutory power aimed at fair distribution of an essential commodity at consumer-friendly prices.

Ratio Decidendi: A price control order issued under a broad empowering provision for securing equitable distribution and availability of an essential commodity at fair prices is valid if it falls within the statutory purpose and is not patently arbitrary, discriminatory, or demonstrably outside the zone of reasonableness.

---