Control order supremacy and association liability governed scrap sales above the controlled maximum price.

An earlier Madhya Bharat notification allowing sales at column III rates did not survive once the Indian Iron & Steel (Scrap Control) Order, 1943 was extended to Madhya Bharat, because the later control order occupied the field and the saving provision preserved prior directions only so far as they were not displaced. The General Clauses Act did not keep the notification alive after the order under which it operated ceased to apply. An unincorporated scrap dealers' association was also treated as liable for sales made through its business operations, and its President could not avoid responsibility where the association benefited from controlled-source classification and the contravention was committed through its activities.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Madhya Bharat notification permitting sales at column III rates survived the extension of the Indian Iron & Steel (Scrap Control) Order, 1943 to Madhya Bharat, and (ii) whether the Scrap Dealers Association, being an unincorporated body, and its President could avoid liability for sales made above the controlled maximum price.

Issue (i): Whether the Madhya Bharat notification permitting sales at column III rates survived the extension of the Indian Iron & Steel (Scrap Control) Order, 1943 to Madhya Bharat.

Analysis: The earlier Madhya Bharat control regime and the directions issued under it were treated as subordinate legislation dependent on the parent order. Once the Indian Scrap Order was extended to Madhya Bharat, the two control regimes could not stand together because their provisions were not identical and the Indian Order occupied the field. The saving in section 17(4) of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 preserved orders and directions then in force only so far as they were not displaced by the later applicable control order. Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 did not assist because the notification was not preserved after repeal of the order under which it operated.

Conclusion: The Madhya Bharat notification did not survive, and the sales remained governed by the Indian Scrap Order.

Issue (ii): Whether the Scrap Dealers Association, being an unincorporated body, and its President could avoid liability for sales made above the controlled maximum price.

Analysis: An unincorporated body can be treated as a person for the purpose of regulatory control, and the relevant sales were made by and through the Association, not as isolated individual sales by its members. The Association had obtained the benefit of the controlled-source classification and was correspondingly bound by the price restrictions. Since the contravention was committed by the Association and section 8 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 treated abetment of contravention as contravention, the President could not avoid responsibility on the ground that he acted only as President or that employees executed the sales.

Conclusion: The Association and the appellant remained liable for the contravention.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on both the legality of the price-fixing defence and the liability defence, so the convictions and fines were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A later applicable control order can supersede earlier subordinate price-fixation directions unless they are expressly saved, and an unincorporated association is answerable for regulatory contraventions committed through its business operations.

---