B.P.Jeevan Reddy, C.J. - (1.) SUPREME Court in Ch. Tika Ramji v. The State of U. P.,Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H. R. Misra, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
(2.) THE petitioners are engaged in manufacture of Vanaspati Ghee among other articles According to them, raw materials for manufacture of Vanaspati Ghee are 'Sesame oil, rice bran oil, palm oil, soyabin and cotton seed oil." THE petitioners hold a licence under the Industries (Development and Regulation) 4ct, 1951 (hereinafter called the IDR Act), where under he is permitted to manufacture 50 tonnes of Vanaspati Ghee per day. On 8th May, 1990, the premises of the petitioners were inspected by the Senior Marketing Inspector and other officials and certain quantities of "Edible oils including rice bran oil,, cotton seed oil, Mahua oil and sesame oil" were seized, on the ground that the petitioners did not hold a licence under the U. P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the U. P. Order). The said seizure is questioned in this writ petition as incompetent and totally without the authority of law. The petitioners' contention, in short, in this 1 Vanaspati Ghee (hydro genated vegetable oil) is one of the items mentioned in the 1st Schedule to the IDR Act, which means that an industry engaged in manufacture or production of Vanaspati Ghee is exclusively governed by the provisions of the said Act. Entry 28 in the First Schedule to the Act takes in 'Vegetable oils and Vanaspati'. The commodities seized are vegetable oils. They are used in manufacture of Vanaspati. Section 18-G of Act empowers the Central Government to control and regulate supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce in, any article or class of articles reliable to any schedule industry. It includes the power to regulate the trade and commerce in the scheduled goods by licences, permits or otherwise; and this power extends to distribution, transport, disposal, acquisition, possession, use or consumption of any such article or class thereof. It is immaterial, it is contended, whether any rule or order is made under sub-section (2) of Section lb-G by the Central Government or not. Once the power of licensing and the power to control or regulate possession, use, acquisition and disposal of the scheduled commodities is taken over by the Parliament by making the declaration contemplated by Entry 52 of List I of the Seventh Scheduled to the Constitution, the State is denuded of the said power. In other words, according to the petitioners, the State Government is incompetent to provide for licensing or tor control or regulation of possession, use, acquisition and disposal of such articles or class of articles in any manner. For this reason, it is contended, the petitioners were not obliged to obtain a licence under the U. P. Order. The seizure of goods for non- possession of a licence under the said Order is, therefore, totally without the authority of law.
(3.) IN our opinion, the entire reasoning of the petitioners is faulty and unacceptable. The IDR Act is a law made by parliament under Entry 52, List I of the Seventh Schedule by making the declaration contemplated therein. Once such a declaration is made, the State is denuded of the power to make any law relating to Entry 24, List II of the Seventh Schedule. Indeed, Entry 24 is expressly made subject to Entries 7 and 52 of List I of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. But, the question is whether the U. P. Order, impugned herein, is a law, or a statutory order, made with reference to Entry 24 or, for that matter, any other Entry in List affected by the "declaration". We do not think so. The impugned U. P. Order is issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, which is an enactment made by Parliament under Entry 33, List 111 of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Entry 33 reads as follows :- "Trade and commerce in and the production, supply and distribution of - (a) the products of any industry where the control of such industry by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest, and imported goods of the same kind as such products; (b) foodstuffs, including edible oilseeds and oils; (c) cattle fodder, including oilcakes and other concentrates; (d) raw cotton, whether ginned or unginned, and cotton seed; and (e) raw jute." For the sake of convenience, we may also set out Entry 52 of List I and Entry SA of List 11 : "52 (List I). Industries, the control of which by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest." "24 (List II)). Industries subject to the provisions of Entries 7 and 52 of List I." The Constitutional history leading to substitution of Entry 33 in List III is set out in the decision of the Supreme Court in Ch. Tika Ramji v. The State of U. P., AIR 1956 SC 676, which we do not think necessary to repeat here. Entry 33 empowers both the Parliament and the State Legislatures to make a law relating to trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution of, "(a; the products of any industry where the control of such industry by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest and imported goods of the same kind as such products, (b) foodstuffs, including edible oilseeds and oils......". ;