- (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.;