# Lau·re11ce Joac/1im Joseph D'So11za v. Tile State of Bombay

- **Citation:** [1956] 1 S.C.R. 393
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1954-09-27
- **Bench:** S. R. Das, Bhagwati, Venkatarama Ayyar, B. P. Sinha, Jafer Imam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/lau-re11ce-joac-1im-joseph-d-so11za-v-tile-state-of-bombay-1317
- **Pages:** 58

## Headnote

Sugarcane, Regulation of Supply and Purchase of-Act passed
by State Legislature and notifications issued thereunder by the State
Government-Constitutional validity-If repugnant to Parliamentary
Acts and notifications made thereunder-If violative of fundamental
rights-Parliament's power of repeal-Delegation of siich power, if
permissible-U.P. Sugarcane (Regitlation of Supply and Pitrchase)
Act, 1958 (U.P. Act XXIV of 1958), ss. 15, 16-U.P. Sugarcane
Regulation of Supply and Purchase Order, 1954-Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (Act LXV of 1951) as amended by
Act XXVI of 1958, ss. 18-G, 15, 16-Essentfo.l Commodities Act,
1955 (Act X of 1955), s. 16(1)(b)-Sugarcane Control Order, 1956,
cl. '1(1)-Constitution of India, Arts. 14, 19(1)(c), (J) and (g), 81,
801, 804, 254.
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the
U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act of 1953,
and two notifications issued by the State Government on September
27, 1954 and November 9, 1955, the former under sub-sec. l(a) read
with sub-sec. 2(h) of s. 16 of the impugned Act providing that where
not less than three-fourths of the canegrowers ·within the area of
operation of a Canegrowers' Co-operative Society were members
thereof, the occupier of the factory to which that area is assigned
should not purchase or enter into an agreement to purchase cane
except through that society and the latter under s. 15 of the Act
assigning to different sugarcane factories specified cane-purchasing
centres for supply to them of sugarcane for the crushing season of
1955-56. They contended that the impugned Act was itltra vires the
1956
Lau·re11ce Joac/1im
Joseph D'So11za
v.
Tile State of
Bombay
]agannadliadas J.
1956
April 24
1956
Ch. Tika Ra1nji
and others, etc.
v.
Tl1e State of
l1ttur Pradesh
and others
394
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956]
State Legislature, the subject·matter of legislation being within the
exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament, and repugnant to Act LXV of
1951 and Act X of 1955 passed by Parliament and that as. 15 and
16(l)(a) and (2)(b) and the two notifications infringed their fundamental rights under Arts.14, 19(l)(c), (f) and (g) and 31 and violated
the provisions of Art. 301 of the Constitution.
Held, (1) that the impugned Act and the notifications issued
thereunder were intra vires the State Legislature, did not infringe
any fundamental rights of the petitioners nor violated the provi·
sions of Art. 301 of the Constitution and the petitions must be dis·
missed;
(2) that the Central Acts in respect of sugar and sugarcane and
the notifications thereunder having been enacted and made by the
Central Government in exercise of concurrent jurisdiction under
Entry 33 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution as
amended by the Constitution (Third Amendment) Act of 1954; the
State Legislature was not deprived of its jurisdiction thereunder and
no question of legislative incompetence of the U.P. Legislature or
its trespassing upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the centre in enacting the impugned Act could arise;
(3) that the provisions of the impugned Act compared to
those of the Central Acts clearly showed that the impugned Act
was solely concerned with the regulation o! the supply and
purchase of sug<l.rcane and in no way trenched upon the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Centre with regard to sugar and the U.P.
Legislature was, therefore, quite competent to enact it;
(4) that no question of repugnancy under Art. 254-of the
Constitution could arise where Parliamentary Legislation and
State Legislation occupied different fields and de,Jt with separate
and distinct matters even though of a cognate and allied character,
and that where, as in the present case, there was no inconsistency
in the actual terms of the acts enacted by Parliament and the
State Legislature, the test of repugnancy would be whether
Parliament and the State Legislature, in legislating under an entry
in the Concurrent List, exercised their p

## Text

_Characters 0–39,372 of 128,645. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39372 for what follows._

S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
393
grounds on which the detention is based and the
nature of activities imputed therein to the appellant.
It is unnecessary, therefore, to deal in this case with
a theoretical contention as to whether or not article
22(6) of the Constitution overrides the constitutional
right to be furnished particulars under article 22(5)
to the extent of denying all particulars and leaving
the grounds absolutely vague.
All the contentions raised before us fail and this
appealis dismissed.
CH. TIKA RAMJI & OTHERS, ETC.
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS.
(S. R. DAS, C.J., BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR,
B. P. SINHA and JAFER IMAM JJ.]
Sugarcane, Regulation of Supply and Purchase of-Act passed
by State Legislature and notifications issued thereunder by the State
Government-Constitutional validity-If repugnant to Parliamentary
Acts and notifications made thereunder-If violative of fundamental
rights-Parliament's power of repeal-Delegation of siich power, if
permissible-U.P. Sugarcane (Regitlation of Supply and Pitrchase)
Act, 1958 (U.P. Act XXIV of 1958), ss. 15, 16-U.P. Sugarcane
Regulation of Supply and Purchase Order, 1954-Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (Act LXV of 1951) as amended by
Act XXVI of 1958, ss. 18-G, 15, 16-Essentfo.l Commodities Act,
1955 (Act X of 1955), s. 16(1)(b)-Sugarcane Control Order, 1956,
cl. '1(1)-Constitution of India, Arts. 14, 19(1)(c), (J) and (g), 81,
801, 804, 254.
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the
U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act of 1953,
and two notifications issued by the State Government on September
27, 1954 and November 9, 1955, the former under sub-sec. l(a) read
with sub-sec. 2(h) of s. 16 of the impugned Act providing that where
not less than three-fourths of the canegrowers ·within the area of
operation of a Canegrowers' Co-operative Society were members
thereof, the occupier of the factory to which that area is assigned
should not purchase or enter into an agreement to purchase cane
except through that society and the latter under s. 15 of the Act
assigning to different sugarcane factories specified cane-purchasing
centres for supply to them of sugarcane for the crushing season of
1955-56. They contended that the impugned Act was itltra vires the
1956
Lau·re11ce Joac/1im
Joseph D'So11za
v.
Tile State of
Bombay
]agannadliadas J.
1956
April 24
1956
Ch. Tika Ra1nji
and others, etc.
v.
Tl1e State of
l1ttur Pradesh
and others
394
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956]
State Legislature, the subject·matter of legislation being within the
exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament, and repugnant to Act LXV of
1951 and Act X of 1955 passed by Parliament and that as. 15 and
16(l)(a) and (2)(b) and the two notifications infringed their fundamental rights under Arts.14, 19(l)(c), (f) and (g) and 31 and violated
the provisions of Art. 301 of the Constitution.
Held, (1) that the impugned Act and the notifications issued
thereunder were intra vires the State Legislature, did not infringe
any fundamental rights of the petitioners nor violated the provi·
sions of Art. 301 of the Constitution and the petitions must be dis·
missed;
(2) that the Central Acts in respect of sugar and sugarcane and
the notifications thereunder having been enacted and made by the
Central Government in exercise of concurrent jurisdiction under
Entry 33 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution as
amended by the Constitution (Third Amendment) Act of 1954; the
State Legislature was not deprived of its jurisdiction thereunder and
no question of legislative incompetence of the U.P. Legislature or
its trespassing upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the centre in enacting the impugned Act could arise;
(3) that the provisions of the impugned Act compared to
those of the Central Acts clearly showed that the impugned Act
was solely concerned with the regulation o! the supply and
purchase of sug<l.rcane and in no way trenched upon the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Centre with regard to sugar and the U.P.
Legislature was, therefore, quite competent to enact it;
(4) that no question of repugnancy under Art. 254-of the
Constitution could arise where Parliamentary Legislation and
State Legislation occupied different fields and de,Jt with separate
and distinct matters even though of a cognate and allied character,
and that where, as in the present case, there was no inconsistency
in the actual terms of the acts enacted by Parliament and the
State Legislature, the test of repugnancy would be whether
Parliament and the State Legislature, in legislating under an entry
in the Concurrent List, exercised their powers over the same
subject-matter or whether the laws enacted by Parliament were
intended to be exhaustive so as to cover the entire fi.e'ld;
(5) that the provisions of s. lB·G of Act LXV of 1951 did
not cover sugarcane nor indicate the intention of the Parliament
to cover the entire field of such legislation; the expression "any
article or class of articles relatable to any scheduled industry"
used in ss. lB·G, 15 and 16 of the Act did not refer to raw
materials but only to finished products of the scheduled industries the supply and distribution of which s. 18-G was intended
to regulate, it• whole object being the equitable distribution and
availability of manufactured articles at fair prices and not to in·
vest the Central Government with the power to legislate in regard
to sugarcane;
S.O.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
395
(6) that even assuming that sugarcane was such an article
and fell within the purview of s. 18-G of the Act, no order having
been issued by the Central Government thereunder, no question of
repugnancy could arise, as repugnancy must exist as a fact and not
as a mere possibility and the existence of such an order would be an
essential pre-requisite for it;
(7) that as the provisions of Act X of 1955, and those of
the impugned Act and the U.P. Sugarcane Regulation qf Supply and
Purchase Order, 1954, made thereunder, relating to sugarcane were
mutually exclusive and did not impinge upon each other and the
one legislature did not trench upon the field of the other, the Centre
remaining silent where the State spoke and the State remaining
silent where the Centre spoke, there could be no inconsistency between them and no provision of the impugned Act and the Rules
made thereunder was invalidated by any of the provisions of Act
LXV of 1951 as amended by Act XXVI of 1953 or Act X of 1955
and the Sugarcane Control Order, 1955, issued thereunder;
Clyde Engineering Company, Limited v. Oowburn ((1926] 37
C.L.R. 466), Ex Parte McLean ((1930] 43 C L.R. 472), Stock Motor
Plough Ltd. v. Forayth ((1932] 48 C.L.R. 128), G.P. Stewart v. B.K.
Roy Ohaudhury (A.!.R. 1939 Cal. 628) and Sh11arnakant Lal v.
Rambhajan Singh ((1939] F.C.R. 188), referred to.
(8) that the power of repeal conferred on Parliament by the
proviso to Art. 254(2) of the Constitution was a limited power and
could be exercised only by enacting a law relating to the matter dealt
with by the state law and the state law must be one of the kind
indicated in the body of Art. 254(2) itself, and as the impugned Act
did not fall within that category the proviso did not apply and the
impugned Act, the notifications made thereunder and the U. P.
Sugarcane Regulation of Supply and Purchase Order, 1954, stood
unrepealed by s. 16(l)(b) of Act X of 1955 and cl. 7(1) of the
Sugarcane Control Order, 1955 made thereunder;
Zaverbhai Amaidas v. The State of Bombay ((1955] 1 S.C.R.
799), referred to.
(9) that the power of repeal conferred by the proviso to Art.
254(2) could be exercised by Parliament alone and could not be de·
legated to an executive authority and, consequently, the Central
Government acquired no power of repeal under cl. 7 of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1955;
(10) that the contention that the impugned Act infringed the
fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 14 inasmuch as very wide
powers were given to the Cane Commissioner which could be used
in a discriminatory manner was without any foundation since his
powers under s. 15 of the impugned Act were well defined and the
Act and Rules framed thereunder gave the canegrowers or a Cane·
growers' Co-operative Society or the occupier of a factory the right
to appe11l to the State Government against any order passed by him
1956
Ch. Tika Ramji
and others, etc.
v.
The State of
Uttar Pradesh
and others
1956
Ch. Tika RamjJ
and others, etc.
v.
The State of
Uttar Pradesli
a1iil others
396
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1956)
and thus provided a sufficient safeguard against any arbitrary exer·
oise of those powers;
(11) that equally unfounded was the contention that the im·
pugned Act and the notification dated September 27, 1954, violated
the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(c) of the Constitu·
tion. Although the right to form an association was a fundamental
right, it did nbt necessarily follow that its negative, i.e. the right not
ta form an aS"Sociation must also be so, as all rights which an Indian
citizen had were not fundamental rights.
No canegrower was com ..
polled to become a member of the Canegrowers' Co-operative Society
or prevented from resigning therefrom or selling his crops elsewhere
and, consequently, the impugned Act and the notification did not
violate his fundamental right;
(12) that the powers given to the Cane Commissioner bys. 15
of the impugned Act to declare reserved or assigned areas were well·
defined and controlled by higher authorities and by no means
absolute and unguided and were not, therefore, hit by Art. 19(1)(f)
and (g) and the notification dated November 9, 1955, could not,
therefore, be impugned on that ground;
(13) that the restriction imposed by the notification dated
September 27, 1954, on canegrowers in regard to sale of sugarcane
to occupiers of factories in areas where the membership of the Cane·
growers' Co-operative Society wos not less than 75 per cent. of the
total number of canegrowers was a. reasonable restriction in the
public interest, designed for the benefit of a large majority of cane·
growers, and as such came within the protection of Art. 19(6) and
did not violate Art. 19(l)(f) and (g) of the Constitution;
(14) that the impugned notifications, being intra vires the State
Legislature, could not also be challenged under Art. 31 as none of
the petitioners was deprived of his property, if any, save by auth·
ority of law.
Messr> Dwa1·ka Prasad Laxmi. Narain v. The State of Uttar
Prade•h and two others ([1954] S.C.R. 803), referred to.
(15) Nor could it be contended that the impugned Act and the
notifications contravened the provisions of Art. 301 of the Consti·
tution in view of the prnvision of Art. 304(b) which made it per·
missible for the State Legislature to impose reasonable restrictions
in the public interest.
Commonwealth of Aust..alia v. Bank of New South Wales ((1950)
A.C. 235) and Hughes and Vale Proprietary Ltd. v. State of New
South Wales and othe1·s ([1955] A.C. 241), referred to.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:
Petitions Nos. 585,
599, 611, 622, 625, 565, 576 of 1954 and 48, 58, 415,
416 of 1955 and IO, 16, 37, 39 and 47 of 1956.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
397
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for
the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
G. S. Pathak,
Rameshwar Nath and K. R.
Chowdhry, for petitioners in Petitions Nos. 10, 37 and
47 of 1956.
J. N. Bannerji and V. S. Sawhney, for petitioners
in Petition No. 622 of 1954.
S. P. Sinha and K. R. Ohowdhry, for petitioners
in Petition No. 585 of 1954.
B. B. Tawakley and K. P. Gupta, for petitioners
in Petitions Nos. 565 and 576 of 1954.
K. R. Ohowdhry, for petitioners in Petitions Nos.
599 and 611of1954 and 58, 415 and 416 of 1955 and
16 and 39 of 1956.
R. Patnaik and K. R. Ohowdkry, for petitioners
in Petition No. 48 of 1955.
R. Patnaik, for petitioners in Petition No. 625 of
1954.
K. L. Misra, Advocate-General, U.P., K. B. Asthana
and 0. P. Lal, for the State of U.P. and the Cane Commissioner, U.P. in all the Petitions.
0. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, and
Jagdish Chandra, for the Cane-Growers' Co-operative Development .Unions in Petitions Nos. 585 and
625 of 1954 and 10 and 47. of 1956.
Jagdish Chandra, for the Cane-Growers' Co-ope-_
rative Development Unions in rest of the petitions
except Petition No. 37 of 1956.
D. N. Mukerji, for Daurala Sugar Mills (respondent No. 4) in Petitions Nos. 611 of 1954, 58, 415
and 416 of 1955.
0. N. Srivastava, for Punjab Sugar Mills in Petitions Nos. 48 of 1955 and 47of1956.
A. S. Chawla, for respondent No. 3 in Petition
No. 10 of 1956.
Ganpat Rai for respondent No. 9 in Petition No,
IO of 1956.
5~
1956
Ch. Tika Rarnfi
and others, etc.
v. -
The State of
Uttar P,radesh
and others
1956
Ch. Tika Ramji
and others, etc.
·v.
The State of
Uttar Pradesh
afid others
398
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1956)
1956. April 24.
The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
BHAGWATI J.-These Petitions under article 32 of
the Constitution impugn the validity of the U.P.
Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act,
1953 (U.P. Act XXIV of 1953) hereinafter called the
impugned Act and the notifications dated 27th September, 1954 and 9th November, 1955 issued by the
U. P. Government thereunder.
The petitioners are sugarcane growers in the several
villages of the Districts of Meerut, Kheri, Gorakhpur
and Deoria in the State of U.P. numbering 4,724 in
the aggregate. Associated with them are the President, the Vice-Presidents and the Secretary of an
association which is styled "the Gauna Utpadak
Sangh" which is a rival body to the Co-operative
Development Unions established and recognised under
the impugned Act.
The notification dated 27th
September, 1954, issued in exercise of the powers
conferred by sub-section l(a) read with sub-section
2(b) of section 16 of the impugned Act ordered that
where not less than 3/4 of the cane growers of the
area of operation of a Cane Growers Co-operative
Society are members of the Society, the occupier of
the factory for which the area is assigned shall not
purchase or enter into agreement to purcha.se citne
grown by a cane grower except through such Cane
Growers Co-operative Society. The notification dated
9th November, 1955 was issued in exercise of the
powers conferred by section 15 of the impugned Act
and reserved or assigned to the !!Ugar factories mentioned in column 2 of the Schedule annexed thereto
the cane purchasing centres (with the authorities attached to them) specified against them in column 3
for the purpose of supply of sugarcane during the
crushing season 1955-56 subject to the conditions and
explanations given therein. The former relates to
the agency of supply of sugarcane to the factories
and the latter relates to the creation of zones for particular factories. All the Petitions except Nos. 10 of
1956 and 37 of 1956 impugn the former notification
..
.
?
J
:
r
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
399
but the grounds of attack against both are common.
The impugned Act is challenged as ultra vires the
powers of the State Legislature, the subject-matter
of the Act being within the exclusive field of Parliament and also as being repugnant to Act LXV of
1951 and Act X of 1955 passed by Parliament, and
section 15 and section 16(l)(a) and2(b) and the notifications issued thereunder are challenged as unconstitutional inasmuch as they infringe the fundamental
rights guaranteed under arttcle 14, article 19(1)(c),
(f) and (g) and article 31 besides being in violation of
article 301 of the Constitution. All these Petitions
involve common questions of law and may be disposed of by one judgment.
A short history of the legislation enacted by the
Centre as well as the Province of U.P. in regard to
sugar and sugarcane will be helpful for the determination of the questions arising in these Petitions. On
8th April, 193~, the Cen~ral Legislature passed t.he
Sugar Industry (Protection) Act, 1932 (Act XIII of
1932) to provide for the fostering and developmen~
of Sugar Industry in India in pursuance of the policy
of discriminating protection of industries with due
regard to the well being of the community.
As a
result of the protection thus granted to the sugar
industry, the number of sugar factories which was
31 prior thereto registered a rapid rise and by 1938
they were 139 in number. There was also a large expansion in the cultivation of sugarcane and millions
of cultivators in the Province of U.P. took to growing
sugarcane. In order to protect their interests and
for the purpose of assuring to them a fair price for
their produce, the Central Legislature enacted on 1st
May, 1934 the Sugarcane Act, 1934 (Act XV of
1934) to regulate the price at which sugarcane intended to be used in the manufacture of sugar might
be purchased by or for factories. Sugarcane was
grown in various Provinces and the declaration of
controlled areas and the fixing of minimum price for
the purchase of sugarcane intended for use in any
factory in any controlled area was of necessity left
to the Provincial Governments and the Provincial
1956
Ch. Tika Ramji
and others, etc.
v .•
The State of
Uttar Pradesh
and others
BhagwatiJ.
1956
Ch. Tika Ramji
and others, etc,
v.
The State of
Uttar Pradesh
and others
BhagwatiJ,
400
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956]
Governments were also empowered to make rules for
the purpose of carrying into effect. the objects of the
Act including, in particular, the organisation of
growers of sugarcane into Co-operative Societies for
the sale of sugarcane to factories.
With tbe coming into operation of the Government
of India Act, 1935, there was a distribution oflegislative powers between the Dominion Legislature and
the Provincial Legislatures and agriculture (Entry
No. 20), trade and commerce within the Province
(Entry No. 27) and production, supply and distribution of goods, development of industries subject to
the provision in List I with respect to development
of certain industries under Dominion control (Entry
No. 29) were included in List II, the Provincial
Legislative List. The relevant provision in List I was
contained in Entry No. 34: "Development of industries where development under Dominion control is
declared to be in the public interest". As a result of
this distribution of legislative powers, the entire
subject-matter of Act XV of 1934 fell within the Provincial Legislative List. It was felt that Act XV of1934
was not sufficiently comprehensive for dealing with
the problems of the sugar industry and it was found
necessary to replace it by a new measure which would
provide for the better organisation of cane supplies
to sugar factories. The Governments of U.P. and
Bihar, therefore, decided in consultation with each
other to introduce legislation on similar lines for
both the Provinces which together accounted for
nearly 85 prtr cent. of production of sugar in India.
The U.P. Legislature accordingly enacted on 10th
February, 1938 the U.P. Sugar Factories Control Act,
1938 (U.P. Act I of 1938) to provide for the licensing
of the sugar factories and for regulating the supply
of sugarcane intended for use in such factories and
the price at which it may be purchased and for other
incidental matters. This Act provided for (a) the
licensing of sugar factories, (b) the regulation of the
supply of sugarcane to factories, (c) the minimum
price for sugarcane, ( d) the establishment of Sugar
Control Board and Advisory Committee, and (e) a
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
401
tax on the sale of sugarcane intended for use in factories, and repealed Act XV of 1934.
This Act was
to remain in force initially until 30th June, 1947 but
the period was extended to 30th June, 1950 by U.P.
Act XIII of 1947 and to 30th June, 1952 by U.P. Act
XXI of 1950.
The Second World War intervened and an emergency was proclaimed by the Governor-General under
section 102 of the Government of India Act, 1935.
The Dominion Legislature acquired the power to make
laws for the Provinces with respect to any of the
matters enumerated in the Provincial Legislative
List. The result was in effect to make the Provincial
Legislative List also a Concurrent Legislative List
for the operation of the Dominion Legislature but if
any provision of a Provincial law was repugnant to
any provision of the Dominion law made in exercise
of that power, the Dominion law was to prevail and
the Provincial law was to be void to the extent of
the repugnancy. The proclamation of emergency was
to operate until revoked by a subsequent proclamation and laws made by the Dominion Legislature as
above were to have effect until the expiration. of a
period of six months after the proclamation had
ceased to operate. The Defence of India Act and the
Rules made thereunder occupied the field, sugar was
made a controlled commodity in the year 1942 and
its production and distribution as well as the fixation
ofsugarprices were regulated by the Sugar Controller
thereafter. The proclamation of emergency was revo\rnd on lst April, 1946 and the laws made by the
Dominion Legislature in the field of the Provincial
Legislative List were to cease to have effect after 30th
September, 1946. On 26th March, 1946, the British
Parliament enacted the India (Central Government
and Legislature) Act, 1946 (9 & 10 Geo. 6, Chapter
39). Section 2(1)(a) provided that notwithstanding
anything in the Government of India Act, 1935, the
Indian Legislature shall during the period mentioned
in section 4 of the Act have power to make laws with
respect to the following matters:
"(a) trade and commerce (whether or not within
1956
Ch. Tika Ramji
and others, etc,
v.
The State of
Uttar Pradesh
and others
Bl!agwati J.
1956
Ch. Tika Ramji
and others, etc.
v.
Tlte State of
Uttar Pradesh
and others
BhagwatiJ,
402
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1956]
a Province) in, and the production, supply and distribution of, cotton and woollen textiles, paper
(including newsprint), foodstuffs (including edible
oil seeds and oils), petroleum and petroleum products,
spare parts of mechanically propelled vehicles, coal,
.
tld'
,,
iron, s ee an mica; ....... .
The period provided in section 4 was the period of one
year beginning with the date on which the proclamation of emergency ceased to operate or, if the Governor-General by a public notification directed, a
period of 2 years beginning with that date. There
was a proviso to that section that if and so often as
a resolution approving the extension of the said.
period was passed by both Houses of Parliament, the
same period shall be extended for a further period of
12 months from the date on which it would otherwise
expire but it was not to continue in any case for more
than 5 years from the date on which the proclamation of emergency ceased to operate.
Acting under the power reserved to it under section 2(1) (a) aforesaid, the Central Legislature enacted
on 19th November, 1946, the Essential Supplies
(Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 (Act XXIV of 1946)
to provide for the continuance during the limited
period of powers to control production, supply and
distributiOn of, and trade and commerce in, certain
commodities. Section 1(3) of the Act provided that
it shall cease to have effect on the expiration of the
period mentioned in section 4 of the India (Central
Government and Legislature) Act, 1946. In the absence of a notification by the Governor-General, the
Act remained operative until 31st March, 1947 only.
The Governor-General, however, issued a notification
on 3rd March, 1947 continuing its force for ·a period
of two years from the date of the cessation of emergency. By virtue of this notification, the Act would
have remained in force till 31st March, 1948. On 18th
July, 1947, the Indian Independence Act was passed
and India became a Dominion on 15th August, 1947.
Under section 9 read with section 19(4) of the Indian
Independence Act, 1947, the Governor-General passed
an order on 14th August, 1947 which substituted the
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
403
words "Dominion Legislature" for "Both Houses of
Parliament" in the proviso to section 4 of India
(Central Government and Legislature) Act, 1946 and
also introduced a new section 4(a) by way of adaptation providing that the powers of the Dominion
Legislature shall be exercised by the Constituent
Assembly. On 25th February, 1948, the Constituent
Assembly passed its first Resolution extending the
operation of the Act for one year up to 31st March,
1949. On 3rd March, 1949, a second Resolution was·
passed by the Assembly extending the life of the Act
by one year more up to 31st March, 1950.
With the
advent of our Constitution on 26th January, 1950,
Parliament was invested under article 369 with power
for a period of 5 years from the .commencement of
the Constitution to make laws with respect to the
following matters as if they were enumerated in the
Concurrent List:
"(a) trade and commerce within a State in, and
the production, supply and distribution of, ........ foodstuffs (including edible oil seeds and oil), ............... "
The life of the Act was accordingly extended from
time to time up to 26th January 1955 by Acts passed
by Parliament.
Act XXIV of 1946 defined an essential commoditv
to mean any of the following classes of commodities:
"(1) Foodstuffs,. ............... "
Food crops were defined as including crops of
sugarcane.
Section 3 of the Act empowered the Central Government, so far as it appeared to it to be necessary or
expedient for maintaining or increasing the supply
of any essential commodity or for securing its equitable dis~ribution and availability at fair prices to
provide for regulating or prohibiting' the production,
supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein. On 7th October, 1950, the Central
Government, in exercise of the powers conferred upon
it by section 3 of the Act, promulgated the Sugar
and Gur Control Order, 1950, inter alia empowering
it to prohibit or to restrict the export of sugarcane
from any area, to direct that no gur or sugar shall be
1956
Ch. Tika Ramji
and others, etc.
v.
The Stat• of
Uttar Pradesh
and others
Bhagu:ati}.
1956
Ch. Tika Ratnji
aud others, etc.
v.
The State of
Uttar Pradesh
and otlic,.s
Bhag1r.:ati J,
404
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956]
manufactured from sugarcane except under and in
accordance with the conditions specified in the licence
issued in this behalf and to prohibit or to restrict the
despatch of gur or sugar from any State or any area
therein. Power was also given to fix minimum price
of sugarcane and no person was to sell or agree to sell
sugarcane to a producer and no producer was to purchase or agree to purchase sugarcane at a price lower
than that notified thereunder. This power of fixing the
price of sugarcane was exercised by the Central Government from time to time by issuing notifications
fixing the minimum prices to be paid by the producers
of sugar by vacuum pan process or their agents for
sugarcane purchased by them during the 1950-51
crushing season iu various States including U.P.
On 31st October, 1951, Parliament enacted the
Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951
(Act LXV of 1951) to provide for the development
and regulation of certain industries. By section 2 ,of
the Act it was declared that it was expedient in the
public interest that the Union should take under its
control the industries specified in the First SchEdule
which included in item 8 thereof the industry engaged
in the manufacture or production of sugar.
The Province of Bihar which, along with U.P.
contributed to nearly 85 per cent. of production of
sugar in India had also on its Statute Book the Bihar
Sugar Factories Control Act VII of 1937. On 10th
April, 1938, a joint meeting of the U.P. and the Bihar
Sugar Control Boards was held at which it was resolved
that a Committee be appointed to enquire into the
working of the sugarcane rnles and labour conditions
prevailing in the sugar factories in the two Provinces.
The Governments of the U.P. and Bihar accepted
this recommendation of the Sugar Control Boards and
accordingly appointed the Khaitan Committee, (1)
to examine the working of the sugarcane rules, (2)
to look into the complaints of malpractices received
from time to time in connection with the supply of
sugarcane to the sugar factories, (3) to enquire in to
the labour conditions of the sugar factories, and (4)
to suggest remedial measures for the shortcomings as
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
405
noted in (1), (2) and (3) above. Shibban Lal Saxena,
the present President of the Ganna Utpadak Sangh
and one of the petitioners before us was also a member of that Committee. That Committee submitted
its Report in 1940 recommending inter alia abolition
of the dual system of supply and creation of a strong
co-operative organisation of the sugarcane growers
themselves as also creation of a zonal system. The
Indian Tariff Board had also, in the nieanwhile, made
its Report on the sugar industry in the year 1938
commending the advantages of a zonal system. There
was further the report of the U. P. Sugar Industry
Enquiry Committee, 1951 called the Swaminathan
Committee, which also recommended the abolition
of dual agencies of cane supplies to factories and commended the desirability of employing the agency of
t.he Co-operative Societies for the purpose. It also
recommended that the U. P. Act I of 1938 should be
amended in order to make this regulation possible.
Act LXV of 1951 was brought into force with effect
from 8th May, 1952. In view of the same, certain
provisions of U. P. Act I of 1938 became inoperative.
The U.P. Legislature, therefore, passed on 29th June,
1952 the U. P. Sugar Factories Control (Amendment)
Act, 1952, deleting those provisions and putting the
amended Act permanently on the Statute Book. The
U. P. Act I of 1938, as thus amended, continued in
force till, as a result of the prior enactment of Act
LXV of 1951 and the report of the Indian Tariff
Board on the Sugar Industry as well as the reports
of the Khaitan Committee and the Swaminathan
Committee mentioned above, the U. P. Legislature
enacted the impugned Act.
The object of the enactment was stated to be as follows: "With the promulgation of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 with effect from 8th May, 1952, the
regulation of the sugar industry has become exclusively a Central subject. The State Governments are
now only concerned with the supply of sugarcane to
the sugar factorioes. The Bill is being introduced in
order to provide for a rational distribution of sugarcane to factories, for its development on organised
~3
1956
Ch. Tika Ratnji
and otlrers, etc,
v.
The State of
Uttar Pradesh
and others
Bhagwatij.
1956
Ch. Tika Rarnji
and others. etc,
v.
Tlie State of
Uttar Pradesh
and otlters
Bltagn:a(i J.
406
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956]
scientific lines, to protect the interests of the ca:ne
growers and of the industry and to put the new Act
permanently on the Statute Book" (Vide Statement
of objects and reasons published in the U. P. Gazette
Extraordinary dated 15th July, 1953). This is the
impugned Act the vires of which is challenged in
these Petitions. In exorcise of the rule-making power
conferred by section 28 of the Act, the U.P. Government made the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply
and Purchase) Rules, 1954. The U. P. Government also, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 16 of the Act, promulgated the U.P. Sugarcane
Supply and Purchase Order, 1954, which came into
effect from 19th September, 1954. All these related
to the supply and purchase of sugarcane in U.P.
Act LXV of 1951 was amended by Act XXVI of
1953 which, by adding Chapter IIl(b), invested the
Central Government inter alia with power so far as it
appeared to it necessary or expedient for securing the
equitable distribution and availability at fair prices
of any article or class of articles relatable to any
scheduled industry to provide by notified order for
regulation of supply and distribution thereof and
trade and commerce therein.
On 1st April, 1955, Parliament enacted the Essential Commodit.ies Act, 1955 (Act X of 1955) to provide in the interests of the general public for the
control of production, supply and distribution of, and
trade and commerce in, certain commodities.· The
essential commodity there was defined to mean any
of the following classes of commodities:
"(v) foodstuffs, including edible oilseeds and
oils;
(xi) any other class of commodity which the
Central Government may, by notified order declare
to be an essential commodity for the purposes of this
Act, being a commodity with respect to which Parlia·
ment has power to make laws by virtue of Entry 33
in List III in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution;''
Foodcrops were defined as inclusive of crops of sugar-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
407
cane. Section 3(1) empowered the Central Government, if it was of the opinion that it was necessary
or expedient to do so for maintaining or increasing
the supply of any essential commodity or for securing its equitable distribution and availability at
fair prices, to provide by order for regulating or
prohibiting the production, supply and distribution
thereof and trade and commerce therein. Section 3(2)
(b) inter alia provided for the making of such an
order for bringing under cultivation any waste or
arable land whether appurtenant to a building or not,
for the growing thereon off oodcrops generally or of
specified foodcrops. Section 16 of the Act repealed (a)
the Essential Commodities Ordinance, 1955, and (b)
any other law in force in any State immediately before the commencement of the Act in so far as such
law controlled or authorised the control of the production, supply and dist.ribution of, and trade and
commerce in, any essential commodity.
In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of
the Act, the Central Government promulgated on 27th
August, 1955 the Sugar Control Order, 1955 and the
Sugarcane Control Order, 1955. The latter empowered
the Central Government, after consultation with such
authorities, bodies or associations as it may deem fit
by notification in the official Gazette from time to
time, to fix the price of sugarcane and direct payment
thereof and also to regulate the movement of sugarcane. The power to regulate the movement of sugarcane comprised the power to prohibit or restrict or
otherwise regulate the export of sugarcane from any
area for supply to different factories and the power
to direct that no gur (jaggery) or sugar shall be
manufactured from sugarcane except under and in
accordance with the conditions specified in a licence
issued in this behalf. Clause 7 of this order provided
that the Sugar and Gur Control Order, 1950, published
by the Government of India in the Ministry of Food
and Agriculture, S.R.O. 735 dated 7th October, 1950,
and any order made by a State Government or other
authority re~ulating or prohibiting the production,
supply and distribution of sugarcane and trade or
1956
Cli. Tika Ramji
and others, etc.
v.
The Stato of
Uttar Pradesh
and others
Bhagwati].
1956
Ch. Tika Raniji
and others, etc.
v.
The State of
Uttar Pradesh
and others
BhagwatiJ.
408
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1956]
commerce therein were thereby repealed except as
respect to things done or omitted to be done under
any such order before the commencement of the order.
These are the 1·especti ve Acts and Notifications
passed by the Centre as well as the State of U. P. in
regard to sugar and sngarcane.
Learned counsel for the petitioners urged before us:
(1) that the State of U. P. had no power to enact
the impugned Act as the Act is with respect to the
snbject of industries the control of which by the
Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest within the meaning
of Entry 52 of List I and is, therefore, within the exclnsive province of Parliament.
The impugned Act
is, therefore, ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature and is a colourable exercise of legislative power
by the State;
(2) the impngned Act is repugnant to Act LXV
of 1951 and Act X of 1955 and in the event of the
Court holding that the impugned Act was within the
legislative competence of the State Legislature, it is
void by reason of such repugnancy;
(3) the impugned Act stands repealed to the extent that it has been repealed by section 16 of Act X
of 1955 and by clause 7 of the Sugarcane Control
Order, 1955, made in exercise of the powers conferred
by section 3 of Act X of 1955;
(4) the impugned Act infringes the fundamental
right guaranteed by article 14 inasmuch as very wide
powers are given to the Cane Commissioner which
can be used in a discriminatory manner;
(5) the impugned Act and the notification dated
27th September, 1954, violate the fundamental right
guaranteed under article 19(l)(c) in that the Co-operative Societies are not volunt.ary organisations but
a cane grower is compelled to become a member of
the Society before he can sell his sugarcane to a
factory;
(6) the impugned Act and the notifications infringe the fundamental right guaranteed by article
19(1)(f) and (g) and article 31 of the Constitution;
(7) the impugned Act is void in that it confers
-
RC.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
409
very wide powers on executive officials and is a piece
of delegated legislation; and
(8) the impugned Act is destructive of the freedom of trade and commerce and thus is violative of
article 301 of the Constitution.
Re. (1): This contention relates to the legislative
competence of the U.P. State Legislature to enact
the impugned Act. It was contended that, even though
the impugned Act purported to legislate in regard to
sugarcane required for use in sugar factories, it was,
in pith and substance, and in its true nature and
effect legislation in regard to sugar industry which
had been declared by Act LXV of 1951 to be an
industry the control of which by the Union was
expedient in the public interest and was, therefore,
within the exclusive province of Parliament under
Entry 52 of List I .. The word 'industry', it was contended, was a word of very wide import and included
not only the process of m_anufacture or production
but also all things which were necessarily incidental
to it, viz., the raw materials for the industry as also
the products of that industry and would, therefore,
include within its connotation the production, supply
and distribution of raw materials for that industry
which meant sugarcane in relation to sugar industry.
It was also contended that in so far as the impugned
Act purported to legislate in regard to sugarcane
which was a necessary ingredient in the production
of sugar it was a colourable exercise of legislative
power by the State, ostensibly operating in its own
field within Entry 27 of List II but really trespassing
upon the field of Entry 52 of List I.
It was contended on behalf of the State on the
other hand that, after the advent of war and the
proclamation of emergency under section 102 of the
Government of India Act, 1935 and by the combined
operation of th.e India (Central Government and
Legislature) Act, 1946 and article 369 of the Constitution taken along with the resolutions of the Houses
of Parliament extending the life of Act XXIV of 1946
up to 26th January, 1955 and the Third Constitution
Amendment Act of 1954 amending Entry 33 of List
1956
Cit. Tika Ramji
and others, etc.
., .
The State of
Uttar Pradesh
attd others
Bhagwati J.
1956
Ch.