Economic price fixation upheld where a uniform cement retention price was based on relevant material and rational classification.

A uniform retention price for cement manufacturers was upheld as a valid exercise of economic price fixation because it was supported by relevant material, including production costs, expert assessment and the weighted average of the earlier pricing structure. Such regulatory pricing is generally treated as a policy matter and will not be interfered with unless it is unconstitutional, contrary to statute or manifestly arbitrary. Clause 12 of the Cement Control Order was read as allowing the Central Government to vary prices with reference to relevant factors, including cost of production, and not as confining it to the earlier three-tier structure. A request for separate treatment failed because the comparator unit was shown to be sub-standard and uneconomic, unlike the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the fixation of a uniform retention price of Rs. 100 per tonne for cement manufacturers under the 1969 Amendment Order was discriminatory or otherwise violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and whether Clause 12 of the Cement Control Order, 1967 prohibited such uniform fixation or required special treatment for the appellant unit.

Analysis: The uniform retention price was fixed after the industry itself had accepted the principle of a single retention price, and the Government acted on relevant material including the increase in production cost, expert assessment, and the weighted average of the earlier three-tier price structure. Price fixation in an economic regulatory field is primarily a matter of policy and is not open to interference unless it is unconstitutional, contrary to the governing statute, or so arbitrary that no reasonable authority could have adopted it. Clause 12 empowered the Central Government to vary prices having regard to changes in relevant factors, including cost of production, and did not confine the Government to the earlier three-tier structure. The claimed parity with Travancore Cement Limited also failed because that unit was shown to be a sub-standard and uneconomic concern with no comparable capacity for expansion, while no similar material was produced for the appellant.

Conclusion: The uniform retention price was valid and non-discriminatory, and Clause 12 did not bar the Government from introducing a uniform price. The claim for separate treatment of the appellant was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In economic price fixation, a uniform rate based on relevant expert material and a rational classification does not violate Article 14 merely because some units receive a lesser advantage than others, and judicial review is limited to cases of constitutional or statutory violation or manifest arbitrariness.

---