PUNJAB TRADERS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(SC)-1990-9-87
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on September 18,1990

PUNJAB TRADERS Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

SANJAY JAIN VS. BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1998-8-82] [REFERRED]
SATYARANJAN SAHA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-1999-9-33] [REFERRED TO]
AHMED EHTESHAM KAWKAB VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2009-9-34] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S LVSR FAMRS PVT LTD VS. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR HIGH COURT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2012-6-33] [REFERRED TO]
TATA CONSTRUCTION AND PROJECTS LTD VS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1995-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
GURAMMA VS. VAIJNATH [LAWS(BOM)-1993-9-78] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE VS. S L MISHRA [LAWS(BOM)-1995-4-11] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL DATTATRAYA ADE ANIL DATTATRAYA ADE VS. PRESIDING OFFICER SCHOOL TRIBUNAL AMRAVATI REGION AMRAVATI [LAWS(BOM)-2003-3-92] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVGANGA PAPER CONVERTERS PVT LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2003-12-69] [REFERRED TO]
P C SEN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-5-64] [REFERRED TO]
ADITYA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2014-1-2] [REFERRED TO]
THE BIHAR ENGINEERING SERVICES ASSOCIATION & ORS. VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2012-12-60] [REFERRED TO]
SHIBA SHANKAR MOHAPATRA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2009-11-102] [REFERRED TO]
KMK EVENT MANAGEMENT LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [LAWS(APH)-2014-12-74] [REFERRED TO]
SUN DIRECT TV PVT LTD VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(ALL)-2012-7-88] [REFERRED TO]
R R PATIL VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2001-12-16] [REFERRED TO]
AMRIT BANASPATI COMPANY LTD VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2000-12-17] [REFERRED]
SINDHU RESETTLEMENT CORPORATION LTD VS. SHREE OM COMMERCIAL COOP. SOCIETY LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2013-3-152] [REFERRED TO]
G VARALAKSHMI VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SOCIAL WELFARE [LAWS(APH)-2013-7-60] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [LAWS(CA)-2009-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
BANSAPANI IRON LTD. VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2015-11-15] [REFERRED TO]
D. MAHESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2016-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
G. RAMA MOHAN RAO AND ANOTHER VS. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND CHAIRMAN, AGRICULTURAL, MARKETING & COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER [LAWS(APH)-2017-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
KOTHA SAMBASIVA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2017-6-17] [REFERRED TO]
RASHMI REKHA NAG VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-7-162] [REFERRED TO]
ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-2020-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
NORTH WESTERN CACHAR TEA COMPANY LIMITED VS. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2021-1-48] [REFERRED TO]
GHANASHYAM MISHRA AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY VS. EDELWEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2021-4-19] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This appeal by special leave arises from the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1378 of 1973. The appellants in the writ petition challenged the constitutionality of the East Punjab Molasses (Control) Amendment Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Amendment Act, 1973") on the ground that the said amendment had not received the previous sanction of the President of India in terms of Article 304(b) of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellants were not shown to have been aggrieved by the impugned amendment.
(2.)The Amendment Act, 1973 amended the provisions of the East Punjab Molasses (Control) Act, 1948 (East Punjab Act No. 11 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the "Principal Act"), as it stood at the relevant time. The Principal Act had been earlier amended in 1950, 1957, 1964 and 1968. It was subsequently amended in 1976. The appellants have, however, challenged only the Amendment Act, 1973 and have significantly not challenged the earlier or subsequent amendments. Rejecting the appellants' contentions, the High Court observed :-
"..........We have very carefully gone through the petition and we have asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to point out any averment from the petition, to show that the. petitioners were dealing with molasses which were not covered under the definition of molasses given in the unamended Act, but are covered within the definition of molasses under the Amending Act. No such averment has been made ......... .The grievance of the petitioners that they have been made subject to the provisions of the Act in view of the Amending Act, thus does not stand substantiated from the averments made in the petition ..............."

(3.)The appellants admitted before the High Court that, apart from the Principal Act, as enacted in 1948, being an 'existing law', and therefore, beyond challenge, none of its provisions could be regarded as an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse. The appellants, however, contended that the impugned provisions inserted in 1973 were null and void for the reason that the restrictions so introduced had not received the previous sanction of the President.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.