# RAM CHANDRA MAWA LAL AND OTHERS ETC v. STATE OF UITAR PRADESH ANJ? OTHERS ETC - **Citation:** [1984] 2 S.C.R. 348 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1984-01-09 - **Bench:** S. Murtaza Faza), A. Varada.Rajan, M.P. Thakkar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ram-chandra-mawa-lal-and-others-etc-v-state-of-uitar-pradesh-anj-others-etc-8545 - **Pages:** 38 ## Headnote Defence of India Rules, 1971 pro111ulgated under'De}ence of Jncli~ Act. 1971Rllle 114-Inrerpretation of-Wh6ther State Govern111e11t can fix price of Im article declared to be essential c;ornn1odity under the Essential Conunodities Act, 1955 in , respect of which Central Government has alrearlv fixed priee under Fertilizer (Control)' Ofcler, 1957 pron111Jftated under the Essen;ial Co1111nodities Act, /955. Defence of flu/ia Rules, 1971-Rule 114 (3) (h)-Scope <~/'-Expression •any'· article-includes fertilize_rs. Interpretation-Rule of-What is test for ascertaining whethe;. conflict between. Central and State statf/tes irreconcila~le . . Uttar .Pradesh Fertilizer Prices (S11pple1nentary) Order, 1974-Validity of On ()ctober 11, · 1973, the Central Govenuncnt in ~en.:'ise of power under cl. (3) of the Fertilizers (Control) Order, 1957 pron1ulgated under s. 3 of the Essential Commoditic5 Act, 1955; issued a notification fixing the maximun1 retail selling price of certain fertilizer \vhich de'alers t:ould charge from consu1ners leaving with the dealers a ve,y .low margin of profit. S1nnc time later in order to con1pcnsate the manufacturers for the higher cost of inputs, the Central Governn1ent issued another notification on June J, 197 4 fixing a very high retail selling price of the fertilizer to be charged by the dealers fro111 the consumers. The dealers Started charging the higher price fixed by notification dated June I, 1974 even for the st~cks of fertilizer acquired by· them prior to June 1, 1974 at the lower rate thus earning fabulous profit. Qn June l t, 1974 the State of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification-(Uttar Pradesh Fartilizcr Prices (Supplen1entary) Order, 1974) in exercise of power under rule.114 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971 promulgated under the Defence of India Act, 1971. This notification stated that the st0cks of fertilizer acqu1red upto May 31,1974 .PY 'the dealers and which remt:iincd unsold with them should be sold only at the.price fixed by the Central Govcrn1nent's notification dated October I J, 1973 and not by notification of June l, 1974. The appellant<; (dealers) challenged before the Hit;h Court the legality and validity of the Staie Governn1ent's notification dated June 14, 197 4 on the grounds: (I) that the fertilizer in qu'eStion having been declared an essential commodity under the Essential Co1ninodities Act, 1955, an Act specia-I!y enacted inter alia for regulating!prices of essential comn1odities, its price . could be regulated only under that Act and not under the Defence of India Rules; (2) that the notification being inconsi5tcnt with the Central nd has, left a gap from which intruders • can infiltrate, the State can fiJ(1he gap in the wall, and thus make its own contribution to the common cause. What is inore, each in theory? nU pdnciPle must be presumed to be conscious of the need for accord and need for • ~cornmodating each other in.the inter~st of •NATIONAL HARMONY'. [360C·F] F A general statute applies to all persons . and localities w.ithin its_ jurisdl\:· 1. tional scope, prescribing the governing. law upo_n the subject it encompasSes, Unless a special statute exists to treat a refinement of the subject with particularity or to prescribe '1 different law for,a particular localit)r. Where, however, the later spedal or local statute is not irreconcilable with the general statute to the degree that both statutes cannot have a coterminous operation, the general G ~ statute will not be repealed, bat the special ·vr local statute Will exist as an exception to its terms. [361 B·C] Suthtrland's Statutory Construction, 3rd Edition. Vol, L Page 488, referred to. One of the tests forascertaining whether the inconsistency is an irreconcilaH ble or intolerable ?Ile, is to pose t~is question: Can the State law he obeyed or A B c D E • • 350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984].2 s.c.R. respecteCt without flouting or violating the Central law in letter and spirit? If 'the answer is in t!1e affinnati~c, the State Jaw cannot be invali~atcd. .Not at any rate when ihe State law merely 'pro1notes' the real object of both the laws, and is in the real sense 'supplementary• or 'coinplernentary' to the Central law. [361 G-H; 362 AJ In the present case, the Central notification is altogethCr silent on the ramification regarding sales from out of existing stocks acquired by the dealers a"t lower rates. The impugned State notificatio'n, oh. the other hand, deals exclusiVely 'with this asp~ct. The State notificatiOn speaks on a.refinem'ent of tht subject about which the Centra) notification is blissfully unaware and on which it is altogether silent. Both notifications can therefore safely be construed as supplen1entary and friendly rather than inconsistent or hostile. [360 B-C] • Ill the instant case, assumii1g that there is inconsistency between the Central Goverllment's notification and that of the State Government, it does not appear to 1,Je an irreconcilable or intolerable one, so as t6 invalidate .the Stite Govcrnm.erit's notification. In the Prcserit case the test, answers in favour of the validity ·of the impugned State notification. The Cci1tral notification is not violated if the dealers sell the fertilizers from out of the existing stocks acquired . at the lower rates, for both the notifications fix the minimum seJlin8 price ·and the maximum , selling price fixed under the State notification is not highCr than that fixed under the Centfal.notific3.tion. What is n1ore, the State notification 'promotes and serves' the object and purpose of bO.th the Centre and the ·state. 'Prorqotes and serves' in th~ sense, that the 1nanifest object of fixing maxin1u1n ceiling Price is to make available to the cultivators who grow 'the food for the NATION to· obtain the inputs at reasonable. prices and to protect thein from exploitation so that the food production is not retarded. [362 A-C] Art..254(2) does not envision Presidential assent . to 'notifi~alions' issued' under an Act (as distinguished fron1 'laws made.by legislature'). [363 F] Kera/a State E/ect1·fcity Board~. Indian Alu111iniun1 Co. t19?°6] 1 S.C.C. 466 at p, 478, referred to .. The impugned notification is nOt violative of Art. 14 Of the Consthution· since the v~ry basis of the challenge on the score of hostile discrimination is F' found to be non-existent.[ 364 DJ G H (Per Vareiarajan J. dissenting) It cannbt be assumed that Parliament which had already· legislated in the Essential Commodities ACt, 1955, a permanent measure, in respect of fertilizer . intertdect to legislate once again and could have· felt the need to le&islatC once aeaJn in the temporary Defence of India Act, 1971 in respect of the same article, cspecialJy because what could be done under the Defence of India Act and the Rules which. niay be framed thereun.der could as well be done with 'equal force under the Essential Commod'i"ties Act and order's which may be passed thereupder. [377 B-C] Section 3(2) of the Essential Commodities Act lays· down. that the Central Government may, havin'g regard. to the local conditions of any area and other relevant circumstances, fix different prices or rate~ in respect of d'!trerent areas I )I· • •RAMCHANDRA MAWALAL I'. U. P. STATE 351 and-for difl'erent classes of consumers. The' State- Government could have reqaested the Central G,overnment to act under s.3(2) of ihe Essential Con1modities Act and fix a different price or rate for the sale by dealers in that State of fertilizer carried over fron1 ·the stock held. on 31.5.1974. Section 5(b) of the Essential Commodities Act provides for delegation of powers and says that the Central Government may, by 0 notified order, direct that th_e power to make or issue notifications under s.3 of that Act shall, in relation to such matters and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the direction be exercisaJ>le also by such State or such otTicer or authority . subordinate -to a Sta.tc Government as n1ay be specified in the direction. The Central Government has not ~sslled any direction under s.S(b) of the Essential Co!Dmodities Act delegating hs power to issue notification.under s.3 of that Act to.the State Government or any officer or aut.hority 0 fthat Government. The State Gover11n1ent has thus· not' resorted to the Provisions contained in s.3(2) or s.S(b) of the Essential Comn1oditics Act, but has proceeded to fix the price of fertilizer on its own under the Defence of India Rules, 1971 which it cannot do under those Rules and the Defence of India Act, 1971 in respect of the essei1tial commodity. [377 H; 378 A-D] The Defence of India Act,J971, which was a general and temporary• ACt, and the Rules framed thereunder cannot apply to fertilizer which ·is an essential commodity governed by the Essential Co1nmodities Act, 1955 and the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 made under the provisions of that Act. Therefore,· the .State Government canriot without delegation issue any notifi.cation under the D,efence of India ~ct and· Rules, 1971 in regard to the price of - fertilizer, an essential commodity governed by the EssefJ.tial Commodities Act and the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957. [378 H; 379 A-BJ· There d~es not appear tO be any provision in Art. ~4(2) of the Cpnstitution for placing any notification made by a State Government under thC Defeace of India Rules, 1971 for conSiderafion by the President. [380 C] · If the Stat~ Government's impugned notifiyation is assumed to be a law enacted b.Y that State's Legislature on Entfy 26 of List II, since the Act of Parliament passed on Entry 33 of List III and the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 passed under that Act were already in force,-the assent of the President had to be received in order that the State Government's notification assumed to be~ a law enacted by the State's Legislature may prevail in the State as required by Article 254(2) of. the Constitution. There is no~hing on record to show that the in1pugned notification of the State Governmen,t Was placed before the President" for his assent and that hi's assent has been received. Therefore, the State Govern~ meat's impugned notification even. as a law cannot prevail over the ear1ilir n.o!iftcation of the Central G?vernment. [389 F-G; 380 CJ . Zaverbhai Amaidas v. State of Brnnbay, (1955] 1 SCR 799, referred ·to. . . . There is a clear conflict be"twcen the two notifications is respect of the same essential commodity, fertilizer, for under the Central Goverllment's notification dated I.6.1974 the price at which' a dealer can seH fertiiizer of the conCerned variety is Rs. 2000 per ton whil~ .under the Staie Government's notification dated 14.6.1974 is only Rs.1050 per ton though no doubt it is restticted to the stock carried over from 31,5.1974 which is in1material in judging the power of the State Oover.nment to fix the price of an essential commodity by a notification ·'r. A B c D E F G H A IB ) ' .. I • 352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984) 2 S.G.R. · made under.the Defence of India Rt;les, ~197 J in respect of which th; Central Government hact already fixed the price urilier the Fertilizer (Control) Order. 1951. Once the Central enact1nent and the Central Oovernn1ent's notification go~ern the price of an essential cotUinodity the State Gove'fn1nent's notification issued in exerci1;e of the clelega'ed authority under the Defence of l~dia Act and the Rules framed thereunder cannnt preVaiJ. [380 F-H] The two enact1nents have to be read in such a way that there is no conflict between them while giving effect to them in their respective fields of operation. If the Essential Cun1moditics Act; 1955 and tlle Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 are considered to apply exclusively to fertilizer, an essential ·commodity, and the Defence of India Act, 1971 and the Defence of India Rules, 1971 are considered to apply to other co~1111odities excluding essential co1n· nlodities there \Vould be no conflict whatsoever between - the Essential Con1modities Act and the Defence of India - Act and between the notification issued under Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1957 and the Defence of India Rules, 1971. [381 A;. 383 D-E] The author of the ·two enactments, Essential Con1modities Act, 1955 a·nct Defence ofTndia Act, 1971 is the san1e, na1ncly, Parlia1nent; and Parliament 1nust be held to have not intended to contradict itself while dealing with distinct matters or situations under those enactn1ents. [f the State .Governments are free to fix: their own prices iri notiflcationS issued by then1 under the Defence of Tndia Rnles, 1971 when the Central Govenunent's notification fixing a·single price for the \vhoie country in respec~ 'or an essential co1nn1odity is in force that notification of. the Central Oovern1nent ·will beco1nc otiose. The question is whether.Parliament would have intended such' a conSequence. The. answer can only be an emphatic no. [382 D-E] Craies on Statute Law (seventh edition) at Page 222 ·and Maxwell on..,, the fnte~pretation of Statutes, referred to. \Vhat has been done by the State Qovernn1ent under the i1npugncd notification is utterly lacking in power and cannot be allowed to stand merely because it r,elates only to a co1nparatively small quantity of fertilizer carried over fron1 the stock of 31.5.1974 and was intended to benefit and protect agi-icultural consumers and p.revent dealers fro1n 1naking .. undue profits. [384 F] . . . CIVlL APPELLATE JURlSDICTION: CivilAppea·I Nos. 1568-76, 1609-!2, 1656, 1672. 1675-80, 1707. 1616, 1644, 1645. 1646, J671, 1673, 1708 of 1974. • From the Judgment and Order dated 14th August & l.:lth September, !974 of the 'Allahabad High Court in Civil Writ Petition. Nos. 34122, 3498, 3430, 346.:l, 3491, 3429, 3427, 3423, 3472, 3443, 3473, 3474, 3494, 3439, 788, 774, 786, 787, 791, 793, 869, 3428. 3502, 3420, 3421, 3528, 3478, 3477, & 3478 of 1974. • Yogeshwar Prashad, S. C. Manchanda, S. K. Bagga, RAMCHANDRA MAWALAL v. u. P. STATE (Thakk!!r, J.) 353 ' Pramod Swarup, 0. P. Agarwal, Ms. Baby Krishnan G.S. Chatter;ce. A ..f Mrs. S. Dikshit, R.N. Tri1w/i & Miss R. Govind for the Appellants. The following Judgments were deli~cred •· THAKKAR, J.. The Cortstitution which promises a socialistic pattern of Society in the preamble and traces. the contours of the socialistic ·philosophy which permeates the spirit of the Constitution, Can neither com1nand nof comm·end the.exercise of the Constituticnal Jurisdiction to issue HIGH PREROGATIVE WRITS under Art. 32, 226 or 227, in order not to remove injustice. but to do injustice, i.n order not to prevent exploitation of the poor by the rich. but to permit such exploitation. And yet the CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDJCT!ON of the Court (as polar:zed from its 'ERROR JURISDICTION' has been invoked in order to use the hand of the Court for transferring money ·from the pockets of poor cultivators (who feed the Nation) to the pockets of tlie dealers in fertilizers (who feed .themselves) by challenging a notification on technical gro1;1nds. Such jurisdiction is invoked to enable the 'dealers' to reap ,a 'rich' harvest of 'unjust enrich1ncnt' tluough the instrumentality of the Court at the cost and expense of the cultivators. We firmly believe that the Court exercising CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION is not obliged to grant a writ in such circumstances. But we need not . elaborate on the theme furthermore as the High Court has rejected the p::tition on merits and as we are of th~ san1e opinion. · Events leading to the institution of the Writ Petitions under •Article 2)6 of the Constitution of India giving rise to this group of appeals (by certificate of fitness granted by the Allahabad High Court) have l"iken the follow;ng course : (i) On October 11, 1973 the Central Government issued a notification fixing the maximum retail selling price of certain varieties of fertilizers to the consumers. It was issued in exercise of powers under clause (3) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order of 1957 promulgated under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act of 1955 (referred to as 'Act' hereinafter). (ii) Some time later, on June ·I, 1974, the Central Government issued a Notification whereby the maximum retail selling price of different varieties of fetilizers was steeply revised upwards in or71, . adverted to as . 'D,I.R.'-hereinafter. Under this notification the registered 'dealers' were prohibited froin charging to the cul~ C tivators price in excess of .the maximum price prevailing immediately prior to the upward revision authorised by the Central Government on June' I, 1974, in respect of stocks acquired at pre:revision .rates held .by the dealers on the eve· of the upward r~vision of prices. D E F G ·H (iv) The net result of the two last menli,oned notifications was as follows ; The dealers could sell to the cultivators fc~tili'zers at the higher rates authorised by the notifica- .tion dated June I, !974 from out of the stocks acquired · thereafter under both the notifications. As regard~,' the ·stocks acquired after June I, 1974 the.registered dealers were not affected by the notification issued by the State Government under the DIR inasmuch as the notification issued by ·the Central Government authorising the upward revision remained unaffected by the notification ·issued· by the State. The dealers however could not sell the fertilizers at the higher rates from out of the existing stock acquired by them at the /owe; rates imme- . diatcly prior to the upward.revision effected on June' I, 1974, in view of the aforesaid notification issued by the State Government on June 14, 1974. Taking the ins- . tancc of •Urea 46 % Nitrogen' the net impact of the impugned State notification 'Was that the 'dealers' were not permitted to charge to the cultivators Rs. 2000 per , ton instead of Rs. 1090 per ton in. respect of st9cks acquired at the lower rates. (v) It was in this backgronnd that the dealers instituted the petitions giving rise to the present appeals by certificate, challenging the legality and validity of the ' . •• _, + RAMCBANDRA MAWALAL v. u. P. STATE (Thakkar, J.) 355 i mp~gned notification issued by the State Government A on June 14, 1974. Now; the follqwing facts are not in dispute : (i) The registered 'deaiers' were ·entitled to a fixed profit margin of Rs, 45 per ton (and no more) under the terms B and conditions of the licence held by them. (ii) The stocks acquired prior to .June I, .1974 were meant for sale to the cultivators at. the pre-upward revision rates at whiCh rates ihe dealers had acquired the stocks. This stock had ··remained unsold· with the dealers till then because the cultivators·h~d not been a'ble to effect their purchases till that date. · (iii) The price rise was authorised to compensate the 'manufacturers'. in the context of the spurt in the price of • c · various 'inputs' and had no bearing on the selling price D for the 'dealers' who were- not concerned ~ith the cost of production. (iv) In case the State Government had not issued the impugned notification dated June 14, J974, the dealers would have been enabled to charge about twice the prices at which the stocks were made available to them for sale prior- .to the notification. For instance, 'Urea 46 % Nitrogen' made available to the dealers for effecting sales to the cultivator~ _at ,Rs. 1090 per ton could have · been sold to the cultivators at Rs. :2000 per ton. Thus they would have been enabled to make a wind fall bum• per profit of Rs. 910 per ton (in respect of 'Urea 46 % Nitrogen') as against permitted profit margin of Rs. 45' per ton (i.e. about 1000 % in place of about 5 %) and to secure 'unjust enrichment'. for themselves to such . an unconscionable C)\tent at the cost of the cultivators. It is in the backdrop of these undisputed facts that the, question regarding the validity of the impugned ·notification dated June 14, 1974 issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh came to be challenged before the High Court of Allahabad. The impugned.notification was issned in.order to meet a problem E F G H ' • 356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 2 s.c.R. • A · which arose in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the situation. The problem arose apparently . because the competent authority exercising the powers of the Central Government under the Essential Commodities Act overl~oke~ that the dealers who were concerned with the distribution of the fertilizers to the cultivators, on a fixed and assured profit margin of Rs. 45 per ton: would be having with B them 'stook-in-trade obtained at the pre-enhancement prices. And that they, might tako. undue advantage of the situation by charging a higher rate .to the consumers even in respect of the stocks acquired at the lower rates. The dealers could and should have sold the stockin-trade acquired at .the pre-enhancement price at the hitherto prevailing rates till the o:d stocks were exhausted. That is what would C have been expected of them, having regard to the fact that they were getting a fixed and assured margin of profit of Rs. 45/- per ton .and that the enhancement of the price was. necessitated and made solely, to neutralize the rise in the. cost of the inputs, which ·phenomenon affected only the 'manufacturers' and .not ,the 'dealers'. There was therefore no occasion o.r justification on their part for charging a D . higher price to the consumers in regard to the sales effected from the existing stocks acq.uired at the lower rates. The notification issued by the Central Government on June. I, 1974 was si/el/f on the question o(selling prices in respect of sales from out of stocks acquired earlier at ,the !owe( rate. Since the said notification issued by the Central Government was silent, the State Government, which appears to E have been more vigilant,' stepped .in and exercised powers which were conferred on it by the DIR. F G H The challenge before the High Court .was made 011 thre~ main grounds, viz:, (Al The Central -Government having issued· a notification· in exercise of powers under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the State Government could not have issued the_ impugned ~oiification under the Uttar Pradesh Fertilizer Prices (Supplementary) Order, 1974 issued· in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 114 of the 'D.l.R.". The power to . fix the maximum price iri respect of fertilizers could be exercised only under the Essential Commodities Act, it being a special Act, and could not !)ave .been exercised by the Siate Government, by issuing an order under the 'D.l.R.' .(B) Even if the State Government had the 'power to -issue ' . . --+ RAMCHANDRA MAWALAL v. u. p, STATE ('Thakkar, J.) 357 the notification under the D.T.R., the notification was invalid by reason of its inconsistency with the notification issued by the Central Government on June I, 1974 under the Essenti~I Commodities Act, 1955. (C) The impugned notification was violative of Article 14 A of the Constitution' of India. B The High Court of Allahabad negatived all the three contenticns by an extremely well considered and well reasoned judgment. Tn the present group of appeals by certificate, the original petitioners have reiterated the same contentions before this Court. Re: G1•ound A : ·The argument in substance is that Essentir.1 Commodities Act, 1955, is a special Act under which the price relating ·to a commodity declared to oe an essential commodity can be regulated. The power to regulate the price in respect of such an essential commodity cannot therefore be exercised under Defence.of India Rules, 1971 or under any other provision of law. Now, both the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as also the Defence of '!ridia Rules of 1971, are Central legislations enacted by the Parliament. The 'D.T.R.: were ·brought into force by the Parliament in 1971 in order to meet an emergency situation. The legislative competence of the Parliament to enact the legislation on the subject in question, namely, fixation of prices of all articles, is not questioned. The Parliament having competence to legislate in regard to the subject has enacted both the legislations, one in 1955, another in 1971. · · The impugned notification has been issued under the latter statute. The 'D.l.R!.' having· been enacted later, it cannot, and it has not been, contended that the doctrine of repeal is attnrcred. Since there is legislative competence, since the statute is not eclipsed by the doctrine of express or implied repeal,. how can . the power exercised under the valid statute be assailed ? The only argument advanced, a misco.nceived one in our opinion, is, that since the 'Act' deals with essential commodities, and fertilizer has been decliired under the Act as an essential commodity, the power conferred by the 'D.J.R:' cannot be. oxercised in respect of regulation of the price of such a commodity or article. It is not disputed that u.nder the_ DIR power has been conferred, inter-alia, to regulate the price of 'any' article. The expression 'any article' is~ v.1idC enough in its amplit'ude c D E F G H A B c D E F G H 358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984) 2 S.C.R. to envelope 'fertilizers'. The fact that 'fertilizers' have been declared as an essential commodity, and its price can be regulated under the ·powers conferred by the Act, is altogether immaterial. There is no constitutional or jurisprudential limitation on the conipetence of the Parliament.to create two avenues or-sources of power for the regulation of prices of articles. · There is nothing in principle or precedent to support the proposititin .that two avenues or soucces of po~er ca1inot be validly created. What then is ihe fabric of· the challenge ? The only answer offered· by the counsel is that the Act is a 'statute specially enacted, inter alia, .for regulation of the prices of c~mmoditics declared to be essential and therefore in respect of such commodities, the power can be exercised only under the Act.. We . are unable to accede to this argument, Since, 'as discussed earlier, Parliament can constitutionally and vaiidity enact two statutes creating 'two sources of power; and since,.· under both the «tatutes prices of· , fertilizers can be regulated, there is no ilJegality in acting under 'either' or 'both'. Counsel; however seeks support from the following passage .from ·craies on s·tatute Law"' :-· . "Acts of Parliamei1t some times contaiii general enact· ments relating to the whole subject-matter of the statute, and also spei:ific and particular enactments relating to certain special matters; and if the general and specific enactments prove to be in any way repugnant to one another, the question· will arise, which is to control' the .other? ln Pretty v. Solly, (1859) 26 Beav.606, 610, Romiily M.R. stated as · follows what he considered to be. the rule of construction · under such circu1nstances. "The general rules," said he, '\vhicl;t are applicable to particular and general en'actments in statutes are very clear; the only difficulty is in their applica· · tion. ~The rule iS, thai whenever there is a partictilar enactnzent and· a general enactment in the same .statute, and the latter, taken in its .most comprehensive sense, would over rule the former, the pa'rticularenac(ment must be operative, and the general enuctment must be. taken to affect only .the other parts of the sta/11/e to which it may properly apply." (Emphasis added) ' It is overlooked that the said passage deals with different pro- (1) Statute Law ofCraies, 7th Edition, 222 ·, +-· • - - RAMCHANDRA MAWA).,AL v. u. P. STArE (Thakkar,'J.) 359 visions in the "same'.' statute. That when there is a special provision in the ·very same statute in regard to a subject matter,· the special provision -of the statute will orc)inarily prevail. in rivalry or competition with the general provision, is a proposition with which there· · is no quarrel. Btlt then we are not at all concerned with any rivalry . . . between two provisions of the 'same' statute. We arc faced with two enactments by the same legislaiure which create two sources of power to achieve the same purpose. To repeat what has been obser- · ved earlier, there is no lega_I bar. to~creating two sourcc-s of po,.ve-r. And there is_ no authority in pri.nciple or precedent for contending that one source of power Is more valid than the other. Or that the power validly conferred by the same Jegislature·can be exercised only · under one, and not the other, of the two statutes, ·leaving aside the question of irreconcilable or intolerable inconsistenty. We, therefore, confirm the view of the High Court and repel the challenge. ' . Rec Groun E F G .H 360 SU PREM~ c6URT REPORTS [1984) 2 S.C.R. (2) whether the inconsistency is .an irrcconcilabic er intoiern blc one .. • . ls there inconsistency ? . The Centra"i notification, as discussed earlier, is altcgether silent on the ramification regarding sales from out of existing stocks acquirrd bY, the dealers at lower rat~s, The impugned State notification, on the other hand, deals-exdusively with this aspect. The ·state notification sp,aks on a refinement of the subject about which the Central n(\ti- . . fication is blissfully unaware .and on. which it is altogether >il•nt. Th.e t\VO do ·not ov.:rlap.' ·Ttiere is therefore no r~al inconsistency. The· principle may be stated thus. The Centre and the State both ca_nnot spea!i on the same channel and creat~ disharmony. 1 f both speak, the voice of the Cenire will drown the voice of the State. The · • State has to remain 'silent' or it will be 'silenced'. But the State ·• • I Ins the right to 'speak",and can 'speak' (:vith unquestionabre authori_ty) where the Centre is 'silent,' without intrOducing-dlShar1ncl}y; If the Centre sits only on a p}rtion of the Chair, the State can sit on the rest' of the portion with. arms thrown on the shoulders of each other. While the State cannot sit on the lap or.on the shoulders of the Centre, both can certainly walk hand-in-hand lending support lo each other, 'in a frkn"utl;erland (para 2022< 1 l,)~hows th.at the aspect tela', ting to 'refinement' is a well recognized factor and that the. state law can be treated as ·an exception when the inconsistency is not irreconcilable':~ ~ , :,A g~nenll Statu~e appiies to a.Ji persons and lora1ities within its jurisdictional scope, prescribing the governing law u·pon the sUbject it e 11c:::nnpass'.!~,, unless a speciql stlltute exists to treat a refinement of the subject with particularity or to p.resoribc·a .different law for.a particuJa:r 16cality .. Likewise \Vhere a later statute adaP,ted for a pafticular locality conflicts with a general law of state-wide application, the special or local Jaw will supersede the general enactment. Where, however, the 1ater spe~ial or local statute·.·;s not irreconcila·ble with . the general statute to the .degree th;ned pcnvcr .of the Centre' to override the State if so .mirided. · On prii:iciple1 eve~y appare~t inconsi~tency cannot be presumed to be hostile or intolerable. MJre so when the Centre .does not even raise a 'whisper of discofd. One of the tests for ascertaining whether th:. inc'.)fisistency is an irreconcilable or in.tol~rable On~, is to pOse this quostion: Can the. State law be obeyed or respecied without flouting or violating the Cent{al Ja\v in letter.and spirit ? If the answer is in tho .tffirmative, the State law cannot be invalidated:· Not.at any rate when the State law merely 'promotes' the real object of both' the (1) SUthi:ralnd's. Statutory Construction, 3rd Editic:_n .. Vo!. l; Pa2e 488 A B c • D E. • F G H .. A B c I D E F . G. H 362 SUPREME COURT RBPOR'fS • (1984] 2 S.C.R. laws, and is lri the real sense 'supplementary' or 'complementary' to the Central I.aw. In the present case the test answers in favour of the validity of the impugned State notification. The Central notification is not violated if the dealers sell the fertilizers from out of the existing stocks acquired at the lower rates, for both the notifications fix the' maximum selling price and the. maximum selling price fixed under the. State notification is not higher than that fixed under the Central notification. ·What is more, the ·state notification 'promoies and serve<' the obiect and purpose of both the Centre and the State. 'Promote' and serves', iff the sense, that the manifest object of fixing maximum ceiling price is to make available to the cultivators who grow the food 1for the NATION to obtain the in.puts at· reasonable prices and to protect them from explo.itation so that the food production is not retarded. It is not contended even by the petitioners, for the ~ery good reason that it is inc~pable of being so contended, that the object of the price regulation is to enable the dealers to make unconscionable profit. ·Thus the impl>gned State notification promotes rather than 'defeats', the 'life-aim' of Ce~tral as also the State notifications. It :i,elps' rather than 'hurts' the objeciives and ·goals of the ·centre, and there is no.conflict whatsoever of 'interest', 'purpose', . or 'perspective'. The State has done only that which ihe Centre presumably would ha·ve r.eadily done if it was fully aware of the situac. tio.n from all angles of vision. For, the only impact.of the impugned. notification is that the 'cultivator' for whose protection the price regulation is essentiallv made, is saved fr.om exploitation . without hurting the. legitimate claim .of the dealer, who, in any case, gets bis fixed profit margin of Rs.