SASAMUSA SUGAR WORKS PRIVATE LTD Vs. CANE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution impugns the validity of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1955. The Petitioner is a private limited company carrying on the business of manufacturing sugar under the name and style of Sasamusa Sugar Works (Private) Limited, the sugar factory being located at Sasamusa in the district of Saran. The opposite party are (1) the Cane Commissioner, Bihar, (2) Sasamusa Cane Development and Cane Marketing Union, and (3) Jalalpur Case Development and Cane Marketing Union. On 12-9-1958, the petitioner obtained a rule from the High Court calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Cane Commissioner dated 31-7-1958 (Annexure F) issued under the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1955, by which the Cane Commissioner (Opposite party 1) directed the cane-growers in the villages mentioned in the list annexed thereto to sell cane to the petitioner only through Cane-growers' Co-operative Society or Societies operating in these villages during the season 1958-59 should not be set aside as illegal and void. The Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1955, under which the Cane Commissioner purported to act was issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (X of 1955). Clause 4 of that Order runs as follows: "The Central Government may by order in the official Gazette- (a) prohibit or restrict or otherwise regulate the export of sugarcane from any area for supply to different factories; (b) 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 5 provides as follows: "Every producer, his agent or factory to whom any order or direction is issued under any powers conferred by or under this order shall comply with such order or direction." Clause 6 provides for delegation of powers and is in the following terms:

(2.) Mr. B.C. Ghose representing the petitioner has challenged the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1955 as unconstitutional, inasmuch as it infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g). His contention is that the Central Government has conferred upon the Cane Commissioner very wide powers without laying down any principles for exercise thereof and without providing for check by way of appeal or otherwise, and that the delegation or this absolute and arbitrary power uncontrolled by any rules of guidance with the possibility of discrimination in its use is ultra vires and unconstitutional. He further argued that it abridges its right to carry on its trade freely and without restraint, and thereby infringes Article 19(1)(g).

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Advocate-General representing the opposite party pointed out that the wider question raised by Mr. Ghose did not arise on the facts of this case, and the question of the vires of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1955, issued by the Central Government was purely academic, and has no relevance in this case. His submission is that the powers for the assignment of particular sugarcane growing areas to particular sugar factories are vested in the State Government and the Cane Commissioner (opposite party 1) both under the Bihar Sugar Factories Control Act, 1937, and the rules made thereunder and the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1955, and the reservation of the area to the petitioner for the year 1958-59 was in fact made by the Cane Commissioner in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar Sugar Factories Control Rules, 1938 (hereinafter referred to as the Bihar Rules), made under the Bihar Sugar Factories Control Act, 1937 (Bihar Act 7 of 1937). He pointed out that the petitioner did not impugn the validity of the Bihar Rules rather the very foundation of his grievance was that the previous system was not adhered to. He has argued that this grievance is misconceived since the provisions of the Bihar Rules were applied.