TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Invalidates Executive Order Restricting Sugar Dealers, Emphasizes Fundamental Rights</h1> <h3>District Collector of Hyderabad Versus M/s. Ibrahim & Co.</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, declaring the executive order preventing sugar dealers from conducting business as null and void. The ... - Issues:1. Validity of the executive order preventing dealers from carrying on business in sugar.2. Interpretation of the Andhra Pradesh Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963, and the Sugar Control Order, 1963.3. Impact of the state of emergency declared by the President in 1962 on fundamental rights.4. Application of Article 301 of the Constitution regarding freedom of trade and commerce.Detailed Analysis:1. The judgment involves the validity of an executive order issued by the State Government preventing dealers from carrying on their sugar distribution business. The High Court declared the order null and void as it contravened the statutory provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963, and the Sugar Control Order, 1963. The State Government's action was deemed unauthorized and discriminatory, leading to the cancellation of dealers' licenses without due process, thus violating their rights under the Constitution.2. The Andhra Pradesh Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963, mandated licensing for sugar dealers, and the Sugar Control Order, 1963, defined recognized dealers and imposed restrictions on sugar distribution. The State Government's allocation of sugar quotas to a cooperative store, bypassing licensed dealers, was found to be against the established statutory framework. The judgment emphasized that executive orders cannot override statutory provisions, and the rights of dealers under the licensing and control orders must be respected.3. The judgment addressed the impact of the state of emergency declared in 1962 on fundamental rights, specifically regarding the right to move courts for enforcement. While the emergency empowered the State to enact laws or take executive actions that could restrict certain rights, the executive order in question was not protected under the emergency provisions. The court clarified that the order was contrary to statutory provisions and did not fall under the protection of Article 358 or 359 related to emergency powers.4. The judgment delved into the application of Article 301 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of trade and commerce throughout India. It highlighted that while the State Legislature could impose reasonable restrictions in the public interest, such restrictions must be enacted through legislation with the President's sanction. The court emphasized that executive actions cannot infringe upon the freedom of trade and commerce guaranteed by Article 301, and any restrictions must be imposed through proper legislative processes.In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision and emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory provisions, protecting fundamental rights during emergencies, and ensuring that executive actions do not infringe upon constitutional guarantees of freedom of trade and commerce.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
