Zonal sugar price fixation treated as legislative policy, so no individual notice or hearing was required.

Section 3(3C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the sugar price fixation scheme were treated as constitutionally valid, with the earlier challenge regarded as already settled by binding precedent. The Court also held that zoning sugar factories for price fixation was part of the statutory policy framework, based on expert economic and agro-climatic considerations, and was legislative in character rather than individualized administrative action. As a result, prior notice or personal hearing was not required before including the factories in Zone No. 1, and the natural justice challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Section 3(3C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the impugned sugar price fixation scheme were constitutionally valid; (ii) whether individual notice and hearing were required before including the appellants' factories in Zone No. 1 under the zonal price fixation notification.

Issue (i): whether Section 3(3C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the impugned sugar price fixation scheme were constitutionally valid.

Analysis: The challenge to the statutory price control provision had already been answered in earlier binding precedent and was treated as no longer open. The provision enjoyed constitutional protection and the scheme of sugar price fixation under the control order and notification was treated as a policy measure within the delegated statutory framework.

Conclusion: The challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 3(3C) failed and the provision was held valid.

Issue (ii): whether individual notice and hearing were required before including the appellants' factories in Zone No. 1 under the zonal price fixation notification.

Analysis: The zoning of sugar factories was held to be integral to the statutory scheme of price fixation and based on expert economic recommendations and relevant agro-climatic considerations. Such zoning was treated as legislative in character, not as individualized administrative action, and therefore was not subject to the requirements of prior notice or personal hearing. The Court also noted that price fixation and zoning are matters of policy and planning and are ordinarily outside judicial review on individual hardship grounds.

Conclusion: No individual notice or hearing was required before zoning the appellants' factories, and the natural justice challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned zonal price fixation scheme was upheld, the appellants' challenges were rejected, and the appeals did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: Zonal price fixation under a delegated control order, when based on expert policy and economic considerations, is a legislative measure to which the rules of natural justice do not apply, and individual notice or hearing is not required.

---