LAWS(J&K)-1973-5-3

SURAJ PARKASH Vs. CONTROLLER GENERAL

Decided On May 22, 1973
SURAJ PARKASH Appellant
V/S
Controller General Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition a challenge is thrown to the validity of two notifications being Notification No. 3981 -88/S dated 30 -8 -1968 and Notification No. 5327 -39/S dated 29 -7 -1972 issued by respondent No. 1, the Controller General of Prices (Deputy Commissioner) Supplies in exercise of the powers vesting in him under the Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance, 2000, (1943 A D.) as amended bythe Amending Ordinance of 2005. By these Notifications the Controller General, respondent No. 1, in this petition fixed the prices of Milk both boiled and unboiled. The relevant facts which are necessary to be mentioned in order to appreciate the questions which arise in this petition are as follows: - The petitioner is a milk -vendor in addition to his being a confectioner. He claims himself to be a member of the Halwai Association, Jammu City. He has stated in the petition that he purchases milk from the milk producers in village and brings the same to the City. He sells both boiled and unboiled milk and curd and other preparation of milk such as cheese etc. in addition to sweets. Respondent No. 1 being the Controller General of prices within the meaning of clause (c) of section 2 of the aforesaid Ordinance, issued a Notification being Notification No.9581 -88/S dated 30 -8 -1968 which reads as under: - "Directorate of Food and Supplies Jammu. Notification. In exercise of the powers conferred on me, under clause 3 (1) (c) of the Hoarding and Profiteering (Prevention) Ordinance 2000 (XIX of 2000) as amended by the Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention (Amendment) Ordinance 2005, I, Sohan Singh. Controller General, hereby fix the maximum sale rate of milk for Jammu City and Cantonment w. e. f. 1 -9 -1968 as under: -

(2.) THE petitioners grievance as expressed in the petition is that the provisions of section (3) of the Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance

(3.) 2000 (1943 AD) are ultra vires of the Constitution of India as applicable to the State of Jammu arid Kashmir as the said section does not lay down any guide -line for the exercise of the power conferred upon the Controller General in fixing the rates of the commodities defined under the Ordinance. According to him, the rate fixed by the Controller General for boiled and unboiled milk was ridiculously low and the result of the fixation of the rate was a huge loss to the petitioner as the price of the milk per kilogram or per litre was much higher than what was fixed by the Notification impugned in this petition. This, according to the petitioner, patently indicated the arbitrary exercise of the power uncontrolled and unguided by any statutory provision. The petitioner has further contended that the Notification dated 29th July, 1972 has fixed the maximum prices of the milk other than the milk supplied by the Government Milk Supply Scheme authorities, at a price lower than the one prescribed for the milk supplied by the Government Milk Supply Scheme authorities. A case of discrimination therefore is sought to be made out so as to provide a basis for annulling the notification even when the provisions of section 3 of the Ordinance survive the challenge to their constitutionality. Mr. Kotwal, however, did not at the hearing press the 2nd ground of attack relating to discrimination, in view of the fact that the standard of the milk supplied by the Milk Supply Scheme was higher than the one sold by the petitioner. He, however, stood strenuously on the 1st ground and that the provisions of section 3 of the Ordinance were ultra vires of the Constitution. He contended that there being ho guide -line available from the Ordinance the power was apt to be exercised at the whim and caprice of the authority and thus the provisions aforesaid could not fly in the face of Article 14 of the Constitution.