KALABHAI VALLABHBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Petitioners are paddy growers. In 1974 the Government of Gujarat issued the Gujarat Paddy (Procurement) ORDER 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Levy Order for the sake of brevity). Thereafter notice of procurement was issued under the Levy Order to the petitioners and others. Petitioners therefore filed this petition on 30th January 1975 in a representative capacity under Order I Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code. On 9th December 1976 an application for amendment of the petition was made and it was granted. On 5th April 1977 another application for amendment to the petition was made and was granted. It is that Levy Order which is challenged by the petitioners on several grounds.
(2.) Mr. I. M. Nanavaty who appears on behalf of the petitioners has raised the following contentions :
(i) Levy Order is not in conformity with the provisions of sec. 3 (3A) and sec. 3 (3B) of the Essential Commodities Act 1955
(ii) Paddy is a foodstuff as distinguished from foodgrains. Therefore sec. 3 (3B) does not apply to paddy. (iii) Assuming that paddy is a foodgrain and assuming further that sec. 3 (3B) applies to it the Levy Order is bad because it does not satisfy the conditions specified in amended sec. 3 (3B).
(iv) Central Act 92 of 1976 is ultra vires Arts. 14 19 (1) (f) 19 (1) (g) and 31 of the Constitution.
(v) Levy Order is ultra vires Arts. 14 19 (1) (f) 19 (1) (g) and 31 of the Constitution.
(3.) The first three contentions raised by Mr. Nanavaty can be appropriately considered together. Several arguments have been raised by Mr. Nanavaty in support of these contentions. Before we examine the arguments raised by him we may briefly refer to the scheme of the Act in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of answering these contentions.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.