NEW INDIA SUGAR WORKS SINGHAL SUGAR WORKS KASTA SUGAR INDUSTRY RATAN RAJENDRA PRASAD HIRDAY RAM AND SON S S S SUGAR WORKS BANDA KHANDSARI UDYOG BANSAL KHANDSARI UDYOG AGR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHS:UNION OF INDIA :UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard counsel for the parties at great length we are satisfied that there is no violation of the fundamental right of the petitioners enshrined in Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India nor is Art. 14 attracted to the facts of the present case. There is, therefore, no good ground to entertain the petitions. We would, however, like to add that on the materials placed before us the Government may consider the desirability of adopting such measures as may soften the rigours of the impugned orders which, though not arbitrary or excessive so as to violate Article 14 or 19, do merit some consideration by the Government in order to effectuate the policy under which the impugned notification was made.

(2.) There are, however, two arguments urged before us which need special mention. In the first place it was submitted that in the U. P. cases the order impugned imposing a levy on the Khandsari produced by the petitioners cannot have any retrospective operation so as to apply to the stock of sugar manufactured prior to the date of the order and would apply only to the sugar produced after the coming into force of the impugned notification. So far as this argument is concerned we find no substance in the same because it is not a question of retrospectivity of the Statute but its actual working. Once the notification imposing the levy was made it will obviously apply to stock of Khandsari produced by the petitioners either before or after the order. This principle has been clearly laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Trimbak Damodhar Raipurkar, v. Assaram Hiraman Patil, (1962) 1 Suppl. SCR 700, where Gajendragadkar, J. speaking for the Court regarding the scope of a Rent Act and Amendment in Rent Act observed as follows:

(3.) This Court followed the dictum of Buckley, L. J. in the case of West v. Gwynne, (1911) 2 Ch D 1. In the aforesaid case Buckley, L. J. while construing an amendment in the Act by which the contract was governed observed as follows: