K. Ramaswamy, J. - (1.) In this bunch of cases the petitioners are manufacturers of cement, sugar and other commodities and plastic bags (for short, HDPE) . The HDPE industries are a small scale sector that secured loans from the banks. They allege that due to operation of the Jute Packaging Material (Compulsory Use in Packing Commodities) Act, 1987 (for short, the Act) their industries are running into losses and many of them are compelled to close their business. The capital obtained from the nationalised banks has become bad debt. Repeal of the Act or gradually phasing out compulsory packing of the commodities with gunny bags would relieve hardships to them. The constitutionality of the Act and the Jute Packaging Material (Compulsory Use in Packing Commodities) Rules and Standing Order No. 539(E) dated May 29, 1987 are impugned as ultra vires and mandatory direction to the respondents to forbear enforcement thereof in packing their finished products with jute bags etc., is sought for.
(2.) We have had the advantage of hearing galaxy of learned senior counsel with their forensic legal skills to assail the constitutionality of Ss. 3 to 5 of the Act and the orders issued by the Central Government on the anvil of Arts. 14, 19(1) (g) and 301 of the Constitution and their repudiation with equal vehemence by counsel appearing for respondents. The petitioners fundamental premise is that their right to carry on trade and business guaranteed by Art. 19(1) (g) and free flow of trade and commerce throughout the territory of India under Art. 301 has been impeded by operation of the Act, the Rules and the Orders issued by the Central Government. The restriction by way of compulsory packing of their finished products with gunny bags is an unreasonable restriction; further, it is not in the interests of general consumer public. The word general qualifies the whole public; in other words, the restriction must be in the interest of the entire general public, namely, the consumers of diverse goods. It must not merely be a small section of the public, namely, the producer of jute. The restriction also must be for the advancement of, or to benefit of the society as a whole. Packing with jute bags made compulsory irrespective of costs, suitability, availability, consumers non preference and hosts of other relevant factors, is arbitrary. Executive priority or preference to Jute Sector at the cost, of and in total disregard of the interests of other sectors like cement, sugar or alternative industry or general public would be unreasonable, arbitrary and a total prohibition. Therefore, the Act is illegal and void. No law should impose restriction for the benefit of a small section of the public at the detriment of an overwhelminghly large majority of the people. The Act intends to benefit only a small section of the society as is disclosed by the Statement of Objects and Reasons, namely, vague and indeterminate 4 million rural agricultural families and 2.5 lacs industrial workers in the jute industry in comparison with general consumers community for whose benefit the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the orders issued thereunder was made regulating equitable distribution of the essential commodities at reasonable price.
(3.) The compulsion to pack cement, sugar and other essential commodities, with jute bags, not only, as stated earlier, hampers free flow of trade and commerce but also escalates the cost of the essential commodities. Jute bags are unsuitable to a particular commodity. Emphasis in this behalf is laid on cement. Packing cement with jute bags causes loss in weight during the course of handling in transit, recurring wastage of raw material like minerals and electricity, and loss to the consumers was repeatedly reiterated by the counsel. The wastage worked out, for the year 1987-88, is to the tune of approximately 3 million tonnes of lime stone, a non-renewable natural resource, 240 million units of electrical energy and 0.5 million tonnes of coal which is another non-renewable natural resource of the country. The statistical data is only illustrative and not exhaustive. On the other hand, packing cement with HPDE prevents, apart from cost factors, loss of the essential commodities, pollution and health hazards to the workmen. The Act casts no corresponding obligation on jute manufacturers to supply gunny bags as per growing demand nor are they obligated to pass on the benefits to the growers of raw jute. The report of the High Power Committee of 1992 would show that the growers are victims of exploitation at the hands of the manufacturers. They are not receiving any benefit from the Act.;