State molasses control and price-fixation measures upheld as valid economic regulation under concurrent legislative power.

The Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 was within State legislative competence because trade and commerce in, and production, supply and distribution of, the products of a controlled industry fell under Entry 33 of List III, while Section 18G of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 was treated as an exercise of concurrent power. No actual repugnancy was shown, as the Central Molasses Control Order had not been extended to Uttar Pradesh and the State enactment had Presidential assent. The molasses control and price-fixation notifications were also upheld as reasonable economic regulation in the public interest and not violative of Articles 19(1)(g) or 301.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 and the molasses control orders issued thereunder were beyond the legislative competence of the State in view of parliamentary control over the sugar industry and Section 18G of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. (ii) Whether the molasses control and price-fixation notifications imposed unreasonable restrictions on the right to trade and violated Articles 19(1)(g) and 301 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 and the molasses control orders issued thereunder were beyond the legislative competence of the State in view of parliamentary control over the sugar industry and Section 18G of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951.

Analysis: The legislative entries were read harmoniously. Control of the industry itself fell within Entry 52 of List I, but trade and commerce in, and production, supply and distribution of, the products of a controlled industry fell within Entry 33 of List III. Section 18G, which empowers the Central Government to regulate supply, distribution, price and trade in articles relatable to a scheduled industry, was treated as an exercise of concurrent power and not as a law exclusively under Entry 52. Since the Central Molasses Control Order was not extended to Uttar Pradesh and the State enactment had Presidential assent, no actual repugnancy was shown.

Conclusion: The State Legislature had competence to enact the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964, and the challenge on the ground of repugnancy failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the molasses control and price-fixation notifications imposed unreasonable restrictions on the right to trade and violated Articles 19(1)(g) and 301 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The control measures were treated as economic regulation adopted in the public interest for balancing supply to distilleries and downstream industries, maintaining availability, and stabilising prices. Greater latitude was recognised for State action in economic policy, particularly where partial decontrol, price regulation, and supply allocation were adjusted in response to market impact. On the material before the Court, the restrictions were not shown to be arbitrary or excessive.

Conclusion: The notifications were held to be reasonable regulatory measures and not violative of Articles 19(1)(g) or 301.

Final Conclusion: The State legislation and the impugned molasses control measures were upheld, and the appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the subject is the products of a controlled industry, State legislation under Entry 33 of List III remains competent unless an actual repugnancy with a Central law operating in the same field is shown, and reasonable economic regulation in the public interest will ordinarily withstand challenge under Articles 19(1)(g) and 301.

---