M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ. - (1.) Learned standing counsel may file counter-affidavit within three weeks, List thereafter.
(2.) The petitioner has a sugar factory at Saharanpur. The petitioner has challenged the restrictions on free sale sugar. In our prima facie opinion, these restrictions are arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. In this connection, we may explain the general scheme regarding sale of sugar. The sugar produced by sugar factories is generally divided into two categories-levy sugar and free sale sugar. The levy sugar has to be compulsorily sold by the manufacturer to the Government or to the nominee of the Government at the price fixed by the Government. Such sugar is then distributed to the poor people of the country through the public distribution system (Fair Price Shops etc.). The idea is that the poor people could get sugar at a cheap price. However, this often entails a loss to the manufacturer because the levy sugar is sold to the Government (or its nominee) at the price fixed by the Government, which is sometimes lower than the cost price and hence, the remaining sugar is permitted to be sold freely in the market so as to make good the loss entailed by sale of the levy sugar. It must be understood that businessmen operate for profit and not for charity. Hence, they are entitled to earn a reasonable amount of profit and cannot be compelled to operate at a loss.
(3.) So far as the free sale sugar is concerned, it can be sold to anybody at any price at any time, otherwise, it would not be free sale sugar. We are prima facie of the opinion that any restrictions imposed on the free sale sugar are prima Jade arbitrary and illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.;