Simple laying requirement under the Essential Commodities Act does not by itself invalidate a price-fixing notification

Section 3(6) of the Essential Commodities Act requires orders made under section 3 to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, but the requirement was construed as simple laying for parliamentary supervision rather than a mandatory condition precedent to validity. Because the provision did not require approval, disapproval, modification, or prescribe any consequence for non-compliance, non-laying did not invalidate the notification fixing the maximum selling price of iron and steel. The notification therefore remained valid despite not being laid before Parliament.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notification fixing the maximum selling price of iron and steel was void for not having been laid before both Houses of Parliament under section 3(6) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Analysis: Section 3(6) required every order made under section 3 to be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it was made, but it did not provide for any negative or affirmative resolution, any period of laying, any power of approval or disapproval, any modification by Parliament, or any consequence for non-compliance. The provision was also not framed as a condition precedent to the making or operation of the order. Considering the structure, purpose, and scheme of the Act, the laying requirement was held to be a form of simple laying intended for parliamentary supervision, and not a mandatory condition affecting validity. Non-laying therefore did not invalidate the notification.

Conclusion: The notification was not void merely because it had not been laid before both Houses of Parliament, and the challenge to its validity failed.

---