Delegated price-control power upheld where the statutory scheme clearly guided fair pricing and equitable distribution of iron and steel.

Clause 11B of the Iron and Steel (Control of Production and Distribution) Order, 1941 was upheld because the parent scheme under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 disclosed a clear policy of maintaining supplies and securing equitable distribution at fair prices. The delegated and sub-delegated price-control power was therefore not excessive or unguided, as clause 11B formed part of an integrated regulatory framework for maximum price fixation and related adjustments. The measure was also held not to infringe Article 19(1)(f) or Article 19(1)(g), because a controlled-price restriction serving the statutory object was not shown to be unreasonable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether clause 11B of the Iron and Steel (Control of Production and Distribution) Order, 1941 was invalid on the ground of excessive delegation or want of adequate guidance under the parent statutory scheme; (ii) Whether clause 11B and the price notification issued under it infringed the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 19(1)(f) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Issue (i): Whether clause 11B of the Iron and Steel (Control of Production and Distribution) Order, 1941 was invalid on the ground of excessive delegation or want of adequate guidance under the parent statutory scheme.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 3 and Section 4 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 disclosed a clear legislative policy of maintaining or increasing supplies of essential commodities and securing equitable distribution at fair prices. The delegation to the Central Government, and the further sub-delegation to the Controller, was supported by that policy and by the statutory framework itself. Clause 11B operated as part of an integrated price-control scheme and supplied further guidance for fixation of maximum prices, classification of goods, and related adjustments. In that setting, the power was not uncanalised or unguided.

Conclusion: Clause 11B was not invalid on the ground of excessive delegation.

Issue (ii): Whether clause 11B and the price notification issued under it infringed the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 19(1)(f) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Analysis: The restriction imposed by clause 11B was directed to the statutory object of securing equitable distribution of iron and steel at fair prices in a controlled market. A price-control measure of that nature, operating within a valid legislative policy and accompanied by directions and safeguards in the order, did not by itself amount to an unreasonable restriction on the right to hold property or to carry on business. The challenge to the notification also failed, since no sufficient case was made out to show that the price fixation, as a general measure, was constitutionally infirm.

Conclusion: Clause 11B and the impugned notification did not violate Article 19(1)(f) or Article 19(1)(g).

Final Conclusion: The High Court's orders were unsustainable, and the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the legislature has clearly laid down the policy of controlling an essential commodity for fair prices and equitable distribution, a delegated price-control power exercised within that policy and integrated scheme is valid and does not, without more, impose an unreasonable restriction on trade or property rights.

---