- (1.) Shri O. P. Verma, counsel for the petitioners, strenuously contended that the notification by which the Haryana Control of Bricks Supplies Order, 1972 was issued, was bad in law. He relied on two grounds, neither of which has any substance.
(2.) Firstly, he argued that an order similarly worded, had been earlier struck down by the High court and that, therefore, a repeat performance by the State government, could not stand on a higher footing. This is a thorough misconception of the situation to say the least. The High court in the first round of litigation had specifically pointed out that the order was being struck down on the sole ground that the satisfaction of the statutory authority had not been made out and the High court further made it clear that it was perfectly open to the State government to issue a fresh order under S. 3 (i) of the East Punjab Control of Bricks Supplies Act, 1949 after applying its mind. What has been done now is to issue a fresh order on a reconsideration of the matter in fulfillment of the High court's mandate. Obviously this ground fails.
(3.) So far as the present order is concerned, there is a specific recital that government "are of the view that it is necessary so to do for securing the proper distribution and availability of bricks at reasonable price". That nails the argument and 'nothing remains on that score.;