Court upholds validity of Essential Commodities Act order, rejects challenges on constitutional grounds.

The Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. It held that the impugned order was within the scope of Section 3 and not ultra vires. The Court found that the restrictions imposed were reasonable and in the public interest, not violating Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Additionally, the Court determined that the order did not contravene Article 14 of the Constitution, as the classification of limits for storing sugar was deemed reasonable. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of upholding the impugned order.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Ultra vires of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act.
2. Violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
3. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Summary:

Issue 1: Ultra vires of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the order issued by the Central Government u/s 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. They argued that the impugned order is not covered by Section 3 and is ultra vires. The Court held that the language of Section 3(1) coupled with Clause (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 is wide enough to cover the impugned order. The Court stated, "Section 3(1) authorises the Central Government to pass an order for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution of an essential commodity and trade and commerce therein if it is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient to do so for securing the equitable distribution and availability at a fair price of the essential commodity." Therefore, the impugned order is fully protected and is not ultra vires Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Issue 2: Violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution
The petitioners contended that the impugned order imposes unreasonable restrictions on their right to carry on trade or business, thus violating Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court observed that the impugned order is regulatory and not prohibitory. It stated, "By the impugned order the Central Government has only put an embargo on the dealers on keeping sugar in excess of the quantity specified. It was passed only with a view to prevent hoarding and black-marketing, and to ensure equitable distribution and availability of sugar at fair prices in the open market." The Court concluded that the restrictions imposed by the impugned order are reasonable and in the public interest.

Issue 3: Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
The petitioners argued that the impugned order is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution on two grounds: (a) it applies different standards for dealers in Calcutta and other places, and (b) it is unreasonable and impracticable. The Court held that the fixation of limits for storing sugar in Calcutta and other places is based on reasonable classification. It stated, "The government is the best judge of the situation in a particular State and that quantity of sugar will meet the exigencies of the situation at a particular place is purely a governmental function." Regarding the second ground, the Court noted that sugar is a scarce commodity and there is no difficulty in selling it at any time at the prevalent market price. The Court concluded that the impugned order is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Conclusion:
The writ petitions were dismissed, and the Court held that the impugned order is neither ultra vires Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act nor violative of Articles 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution. There was no order as to costs.

---