- (1.) The State of Punjab, in exercise of the powers delegated to it under section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act) , promulgated the punjab Regulation of Compounded Feed Concentrates and Mineral Mixtures order, 1988 (the Order). The validity of the Order was challenged before the punjab and Haryana High Court by way of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions and upheld the validity of the Order. These appeals by way of special leave are against the judgment of the High Court.
(2.) To appreciate the challenge to the validity of the Order, it is necessary to have a look at the relevant Sections 2 (a) and 5 of the Act which are reproduced hereunder : "2.(A) 'essential commodity' means any of the following classes of commodities - (i) cattle fodder, including oilcakes and her concentrates; (ii) * * * (iii) * * * (iv) * * * (v) * * * 5. Delegation of powers.- The Central Government may, by notified order, direct that the power to make orders or issue notifications under section 3 shall, in relation to such matters and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the direction, be exercisable also by - (A) such officer or authority subordinate to the Central government, or (B) such State Government or such officer or authority subordinate to a State Government, as may be specified in the direction. "
(3.) It is not disputed that by the notification dated 9-6-1978 under Section 5 of the Act, the Central Government empowered the State Government to exercise the powers of the Central Government under sub-section (1 of Section 3 of the Act in relation to "foodstuffs" which is a commodity specified in section 2 (a) (v) of the Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no delegation in favour of the State Government in respect of essential commodities specified in Section 2 (a) (i) and as such the punjab Government had no power to promulgate the Order in respect of a commodity which is admittedly "cattle fodder" and comes within Section 2 (a) (i) and not in Section 2 (a) (v). In other words, the contention is that the powers to make orders under the Act having been delegated only in respect of foodstuffs, the State Government had no power to promulgate the Order which admittedly relates to the "cattle fodder". We do not agree with the learned counsel. The high Court, relying on its earlier judgment in Sat Pal Gupta v. State of haryana took the view that the "foodstuffs" as known in ordinary parlance would include all types of foods which are consumed for giving life to human beings and other living creatures. It would be useful to quote a paragraph from sat Pal case: "Animals also have life and whatever they eat is food, though in a very narrow sense it is said 'food for animals' whereas similarly whatever human beings eat is said 'food for human beings' but that does not mean that the expression 'foodstuff merely means that which is only consumed by human beings. In this view of the matter, we are constrained to hold that the learned counsel is not right in his contention that the expression 'foodstuff as used in the Order dated 24-7-1967, is merely restricted to human beings. We, therefore, repel the first contention. ";