RADHEY SHYAM RAMSWAROOP Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This order will dispose of all the writ petitions mentioned in Schedule 'a' as all of them raise identical questions for determination by this court.

(2.) THE Government of Rajasthan has issued a notification on May 16,1994 by which restriction was imposed on the whole-sale dealers of 'gur' to maintain the maximum quantity of stock of 250 quintals with further direction that the said stock has to be disposed of within 20 days from the date of its receipt. THE approval of the Central Government was also obtained. THE petitioners are licence-holders under the Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order 1980 (hereinafter called as the Order of 1980) and are dealers within the definition of clause (c) of Order of 1980. THE statement with regard to opening stock, purchases, sales and closing stocks is being sent to the District Supply Officer. It is submitted that the commodity 'gur' is not produced in the State of Rajasthan and is mainly produced in the States of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar from November to February every year. THE various qualities of Gur i. e. Pansara, Chorsha, Khurpa, Paddi, Laddu,balti, Musti, Chaku and Gindora, are sold in various mandis in the State of Rajasthan and used for human consumption. Similarly, Gur of Raskat, Bald, and Pansara is mainly used for animal consumption. THE traders are having normal capacity of 100 quintals. By notification dated May 16,1994 which has become effective after 15 days of its publication in the official gazette,restrictions have been placed with regard to stock limit and the period during which it has to be disposed of. THE grievance of the petitioner is with regard to not providing any opportunity before the issue of the said notification. It is also stated that previously, a notification dated November 7,1989 was issued, but it was withdrawn on January 24,1990. A stay was granted for the operation of the said notification but on account of withdrawal of the said notifications the writ petitions which were filed challenging the same became infructuous. It is submitted that if the stock is not sold within a period of 20 days as contemplated in the notification it is not stipulated as to how the goods are to be sold or disposed of. THE notification is alleged to be violative of Article 19 (l) (g) of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that there was no proper application of mind and the Central Government has given its concurrence in a mechanical manner. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a discrimination has been caused between the retailers and whole-sale dealers in as muchas there is no such restrictions in so far as the retailers are concerned in respect of those dealers who fell in the category of Commission Agent no proper guidelins have been formulated.

(3.) IN accordance with the powers conferred on the Central Government control on production, supply and distribution of the essential commodity is contemplated. The regulation or prohibition, therefore could fall within the purview of the Essential commodities Act. The exercise of such power should not be violative of fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, more particularly Article 19 (l) (g) of the Constitution of INdia. Article 19 (6) permits reasonable restrictions and therefore, the action of the respondents has to be examined in the light of the facts as to whether the fixation of stock limit or time limit is within the reasonable restriction or not?. Various decisions of this court as well as of the Apex Court referred to above have upheld the action of the respondents in fixing the maximum stock limit. This action is normally taken in public interest in order to check the stock of essential commodity. The very purpose of the Act or various notifications/orders issued thereunder will be frustrated if the Government fails to check the rise in prices which is the duty of the Government. It is possible only when the whole-sale dealers are forced to bring their stock in the market. The notification dated May 16,1984 is saved under Article 19 (6) and is not violative of Article 19 (l) (g) of the Constitution. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is discrimination between whole-sale dealers and retailers inasmuch as there is no maximum limit prescribed in so far as the retailers are concerned, has no substance as both type of the dealers constitute a different class by themselves. One cannot be compared with the other. A retailer, even otherwise, is not having so much of the stock as the whole-seller has and therefore the notification issued in respect of whole-sale dealer does not suffer from the vice of discrimination.