MOHAMMED YUSUF Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in these cases are dealers in coconut husks. THEy buy husks, ret them and then sell them. All of them seek substantially the same reliefs. THE main arguments have been advanced before me in O. P No. 2777 of 1970; and it will be sufficient to deal with that case for the disposal of all these writ petitions.

(2.) THE Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) (xi) of S. 2 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 issued a notification, S. 0. 2615 dated 22nd July, 1968 declaring coconut husk (raw or retted) to be an essential commodity for the purpose of the said Act. That was followed by the Coir Retting (Licensing) Order, 1968, which the central Government issued on 31-7-196 8 in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 3 of the above Act. Clause. 3 of the order provides for license for retting, according to which the licensing officer would be entitled to determine a locality within which retting shall not be undertaken by any person except in places licensed for the purpose. It also provides that no person shall thereupon undertake any retting operation except in accordance with the terms and conditions of a license issued in that respect. Clause. 3 further provides for levy of licence fees at prescribed rates per square metre of the retting area. Clause. 4 of the Order makes it obligatory for every licensee to declare his monthly stock of retted husks. Clause. 5 provides that no licensee shall sell retted husks except in accordance with the terms and conditions of permission issued by the licensing officer. Clause. 6 empowers the licensing officer to fix the maximum prices for different varieties of retted husks. Clause. 7 empowers the licensing officer to issue directions in the matter of disposal of retted husks. It is not necessary to refer to the other clauses in this Order. THE licensing officer in exercise of the power conferred on him under Clause. 3 (1) of the Coir Retting (Licensing) Order, 1968 issued a notification No. 3493/69 dated 6101969 declaring that retting of coconut busks shall not be undertaken in the localities specified thereunder except in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued by him; and it also fixed the rates of license fees. THE licensing officer issued a further notification No. 3495/69 dated 26 111969 in exercise of his power under clause. 6 of the aforesaid Order notifying the rates of ex-retting prices of different qualities of retted husks in different localities. THE Central government have subsequently made certain amendments to the Coir Retting (Licensing) Order, 1968 by notifications dated 17th September, 1969 and 10th june, 1970. It is not necessary to refer to the scope of these amendments. In the light of the statutory powers conferred on the licensing officer in the manner stated above, he issued notices to persons like the petitioners to comply with the requirements of the Coir Retting (Licensing) Order, 1968. THEreupon these petitions have been filed in this Court. Some of them seek to quash only the Coir Retting (Licensing) Order and the proceedings taken pursuant thereto by the licensing officer as invalid and unconstitutional, while the petitioners in O. P. 2777 of 1970 seek also to quash the notification, S. O. 2615 dated 22nd July, 1968 of the Central Government by which it declared coconut husk (raw or retted) to be an essential commodity for the purpose of the essential Commodities Act, 1955.

(3.) THE above Entry reads:-"trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution of (a) the products of any industry where the control of such industry by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest, and imported goods of the same kind as such products; (b) foodstuffs, including edible oilseeds and oils; (c)cattle fodder, including oil cakes and other concentrates; (d) raw cotton, whether ginned or unginned, and cotton seed; and (e) raw jute-" Coconut husk does not fall within the ambit of clauses (b), (c), (d) and (e ). It can fall under clause (a) in Entry 33, only if it is a product of any industry, where the control of such industry by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest. In other words, it must be the product of an industry, whose control by the Union has been declared to be expedient in the public interest by law made by Parliament. THE only law which can be thought of in this respect is the Coir Industry Act, 1953, which apparently is a law enacted by the Parliament under clause (a) of entry 33. That is an Act to provide control by the Union of the coir industry. It defines coir, coir products and coir yarn. It is sufficient to notice the definition of coir products in S. 3 (d) of the Act, which reads:- " (d) 'coir products' means mats and mattings, rugs, and carpets, ropes and other articles manufactured wholly or partly from coir or coir yarn;" Counsel for the petitioners rightly pointed out that coconut husk, whether raw or retted, cannot possibly fall within the above definition; and it cannot, therefore be a product of the coir industry. Coconuts are ordinarily sold by the agriculturist producers after husking. Sometimes, they are sold before husking; and in that case, the buyers husk them before the buyers deal with the nuts. THE busking of coconuts is not an industry; and coconut husks cannot therefore be the product of any industry. At any rate, coconut husks are not the product of any industry whose control by the Union has been declared to be expedient in the public interest by law made by Parliament. THEy do not, therefore, fall within the ambit of clause (a) in entry 33 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. That means that the second condition for a commodity to fall under item (xi) in clause (a) of S. 2 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is not satisfied in the case of coconut husk. THE Central Government has no power to declare such a commodity as an "essential commodity". Notification S. 0. 2615 dated 22nd July 1968 issued by the Central Government in purported exercise of its powers under item (xi) in S. 2 (a) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is, therefore, without jurisdiction and void. It follows that the Coir Retting (Licensing) Order. 1968 and all notifications issued and other proceedings taken by the authorities concerned pursuant thereto are invalid.