TARSEM SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BUNCH of writ petitions, whose numbers have been given in Schedule 'a' of this judgment and which will be considered as part of the judgment, are being disposed of by this judgment as common questions of law and fact are involved in all the writ petitions and for the purpose of facts I am taking these from C. W. P. No. 5643 of 1995 (Tarsem Singh v. Union of India and Ors ).

(2.) TARSEM Singh, Sales Assistant, working in Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. , Zira, District Ferozepur (for short 'iffco'), has filed the writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of an appropriate writ/direction, especially in the nature of certiorari, for the quashment of the Government of India notification No. G. S. R. 758 (E) dated 25. 9. 1985, issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, New Delhi, under section 3 (1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and called "fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, as illegal, ultra vires of the Constitution, and the petitioner further prayed to issue the suitable directions to respondents No. 1 to 4, i. e the Union of India through the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, New Delhi; Director, Agriculture, Punjab, Chandigarh; and the Chief Agricultural Officer, Ferozepur; not to take any action against the petitioner under the aforesaid notification and for quashing the F. I. R. registered under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with clause 19 (1) of the Fertilizers Control Order, 1985, referred to above.

(3.) THERE are two sets of written statements-one filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the other by respondents Nos. 3 and 4. The stand of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is that the Control order is perfectly constitutional, legal and affords full opportunity to those who come within the provisions of the Control Order, and it does not suffer from any vice of unconstitutionality. The Control Order has been promulgated by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 (1) of the Act as the fertilizer has been declared as an essential commodity by the Central Government under Section 2 (a) (xi) of the Act. Having been declared as essential commodity, the Central Government is empowered under Section 3 (1) of the Act to issue rules/regulations/orders for regulating or to prohibit the production, supply and distribution of the trade and commerce in the fertilizer so as to maintain or increase its supply or for securing its equitable distribution and availability at fair price shops. The petitioner has been found to be in possession of Sub-Standard fertilizer and he has thought it easy to challenge the validity of the Control Order to evade the liability of availing himself of the alternative remedies provided in the Control Order itself and since he has not availed of those remedies, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It was also pleaded that the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the F. I. R. is not entertainable in the civil writ petition. He ought to have filed a petition on the criminal side to invoke the criminal jurisdiction of the High Court. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that as per clause 19 of the Control Order the petitioner could not even offer for sale, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute the fertilizer, which is not of prescribed standard. The petitioner from whose possession the sub standard sample was taken, nevertheless is liable for action as per the Control Order and the Act. The provisions of the Control Order are perfectly constitutional. The Control Order has stood the test/scrutiny of the Courts. The challenge to the validity of the order has given on highly vague and unfounded and baseless allegations. The plea taken by the petitioner for challenging the validity of the order is not tenable as the petitioner has full right of his defence in the Court of Law if he challenges the validity of the report of the analyst. Even otherwise the Court is competent to pass any order so as to protect the rights of the accused and that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, who has, in fact, filed the present writ petition to save himself from the action to which he is liable under the Fertilizer Control Order read with Section 7 of the Act. The reliace of the petitioner on the provisions of other enactments is misplaced. The provisions of Clause 19 of the Control Order only impose reasonable restrictions and is in no manner violative of the provisions of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. With the above defence, these two respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.