RAMESH PROVISION STORE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India challenge the notification dated August 5, 1985 issued by the Government of India in modification of the earlier notification dated May 22, 1984 whereby the stock limit of sugar was fixed to 250 quintals and 10 days limit was prescribed for the disposal of the fresh stock from the receipt of fresh arrival in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause 5 of the Sugar (Control) Order, 1966. By the impugned notification dated August 5, 1985 the stock limit is the same but the time limit for disposal of the stock has been reduced to 7 days. The impugned notification is averred as arbitrary unreasonable, impracticable, impossible to implement and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The licence of the petitioner was suspended by the second impugned order dated October 28, 1985 and the petitioners seek a writ of certiorari.

(2.) The petitioners are commission agents, dealers and stockists of sugar and khandsari Holding licences to deal in such commodities under the Sugar (Control) Order, 1966. The licence of the petitioners was suspended by the impugned order dated October 28, 1985 on two irregularities mentioned in the order. The first is that it was detected that the licensee has not reflected the different grades of sugar to customers in each of the cash memos issued. The second is the disposal of the sugar on two occasions within the period of 8 days instead of 7 days as prescribed. The petitioners purchased 60 quintals of sugar on August 4, 1985 and disposed of this sugar upto August 31, 1985. The second purchase of 35 quintals of sugar was made on September 20, 1985 and disposed of upto September 27, 1985. On facts, the contention of the petitioners is that they did dispose of the stocks within 7 days on both occasions as the notification uses the word from the date of the receipt and the date of the receipt has to be excluded. The notification is argued as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution on various grounds.

(3.) In P. P. Enterprises etc. v. Union of India and others, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 1016, a challenge was made in similar terms to an almost identical order issued on July 14, 1980 as passed under Clause 5 of the Sugar (Control) Order, 1966. The fixation of limit for storing sugar in Calcutta and other places was held as not arbitrary but based on reasonable classification. In the public interest, it became essential to pass the impugned order to secure its equitable distribution and availability at fair prices and to that end it became necessary to prevent hoarding and black market. The order dated July 14, 1980 also included a similar proviso that no recognised dealer shall hold any stock of vacuum pan sugar or khandsari (open pan sugar) for a period exceeding ten days from the date of receipt by him of such stock of sugar or khandsari. The prescription of time during which the stocks had to be disposed of was not argued before the Supreme Court as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Such a challenge was made before another Division Bench or this Court in a batch of writ petitions, being C.W.P. 1836/85 decided on September 12, 1985. The Division Bench took the view that the whole order, both on the point of limits of stock and the time limit for which the stocks could be held, were specifically challenged but the challenge failed and it is not now open for reconsideration by this Court. The requirement of not keeping any stock beyond 7 days of the receipt was held to keep the wheels of trade moving and thus keep the price of sugar at a reasonable level. We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning and view taken by the Division Bench of this Court and negative the challenge to the impugned notification.