Supreme Court: Laying notification before Parliament directory, not mandatory. Control Order upheld.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the requirement of laying the notification before Parliament was directory, not mandatory, and thus the non-laying did not invalidate it. The Court upheld the validity of the Control Order and the notification setting maximum selling prices of iron and steel, without addressing other arguments raised by the appellants.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Control Order and Notification.
2. Requirement of laying the Notification before Parliament.
3. Mens rea as a necessary ingredient for the offence.
4. Non-prosecution of sellers and Article 14 violation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Control Order and Notification:
The appellants challenged their prosecution on the grounds that the Control Order and the notification fixing the maximum selling price of iron sheets did not have the force of law as they were not laid before Parliament within a reasonable time, as required under section 3(6) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. They argued that the Control Order and the Notification were invalid as they were not preceded by the formation of the requisite opinion under section 3(1) of the Act, which was necessary for issuing any order by the Central Government or the Controller.

2. Requirement of Laying the Notification Before Parliament:
The primary legal question addressed was whether the notification fixing the maximum selling price was void for not being laid before both Houses of Parliament. The Court analyzed section 3(6) of the Act, which mandates that every order made under this section by the Central Government or any officer or authority thereof shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as possible after it is made. The Court noted that the provision did not specify that the order would be subject to negative or affirmative resolution by Parliament, nor did it provide any penalty for non-compliance. Therefore, the Court concluded that the requirement of laying the order before Parliament was directory, not mandatory. The Court relied on several precedents, including *State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava* and *Jan Mohammad Noor Mohammad Bagban v. The State of Gujarat*, to support this interpretation.

3. Mens Rea as a Necessary Ingredient for the Offence:
The appellants argued that the purchases of the B.P. sheets were openly made and entered in the account books, indicating a lack of mens rea, which is a necessary ingredient for the offence under section 7 of the Act. The Court, however, did not specifically address this issue in the judgment, focusing instead on the procedural aspects of the case.

4. Non-Prosecution of Sellers and Article 14 Violation:
The appellants contended that their prosecution was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution because none of the 18 concerns that sold the B.P. sheets to them were prosecuted. The respondent countered that prosecution depended on the availability of sufficient evidence and that non-prosecution of the sellers did not involve any discrimination as envisaged by Article 14.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the requirement of laying the notification before Parliament was directory and not mandatory. Consequently, the non-laying of the notification did not render it void. The Court did not find it necessary to address other contentions raised by the respondent regarding the subsidiary character of the notification. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the validity of the Control Order and the notification fixing the maximum selling prices of various categories of iron and steel.

---