Purposive reading of foodstuffs upheld cooked food under price control, and maximum price fixation was not arbitrary.

The expression "foodstuffs" in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was construed broadly and purposively to include cooked food, because the statute is aimed at regulating the production, supply, distribution and price of essential commodities and ensuring fair availability. On price control, fixation of maximum prices was treated as an executive function that courts will not recast on a cost-accounting basis unless patent arbitrariness, hostile discrimination or manifest unreasonableness is shown. No item-wise guarantee of profit was required, and the challenge under Article 14 failed. The catering price-control orders were upheld and the petitions were dismissed with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether cooked food falls within the expression "foodstuffs" in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 so as to support price control under section 3; (ii) whether the maximum price fixation for the scheduled food items was arbitrary or unconstitutional.

Issue (i): whether cooked food falls within the expression "foodstuffs" in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 so as to support price control under section 3.

Analysis: The expression "foodstuffs" was construed in a broad and purposive sense. The statutory object of regulating production, supply, distribution, trade and price of essential commodities justified a wider meaning, and the Court treated cooked food as a derivative of raw foodstuffs rather than as something outside the statutory field. The legislative purpose of ensuring availability of essential items at fair prices supported inclusion of prepared food within the term.

Conclusion: Cooked food is covered by the expression "foodstuffs" for the purposes of section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Issue (ii): whether the maximum price fixation for the scheduled food items was arbitrary or unconstitutional.

Analysis: Price fixation was held to be a matter primarily for executive judgment and not for judicial re-structuring of commodity prices on a cost-accounting basis. The Court declined to treat the fixation as arbitrary merely because the petitioners disputed the input and overhead calculations. It also held that no individual item-wise guarantee of profit is required, and that there was no showing of hostile discrimination or patent unreasonableness to attract Article 14.

Conclusion: The price fixation was not shown to be arbitrary or unconstitutional and did not violate Article 14.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the catering price-control orders failed in its entirety, and the petitions were dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: In price-control legislation, the expression "foodstuffs" may be given a purposive and wide meaning to include cooked food, and the mechanics of price fixation will not be invalidated absent patent arbitrariness or hostile discrimination.

---