- (1.) Petitioner, who is a producer/manufacturer of mustard oil from mustard oil seed, by means of this writ petition, has prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the Respondents from enforcing clause 11 of the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licencing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1989 (here-in-after referred to as 'State Order of 1989'), in so far as the same is inconsistent and contrary to clause 4 of the Pluses, Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 1977, (here-in-after referred to as (Central order of 1977'). It has also been prayed that the Respondents be restrained from enforcing condition Nos. 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 incorporated in the licence issued to Petitioner in Form B and further to prohibit Respondent No. 3 namely Regional Food Controller, from taking any proceeding or action on the basis of the power vested in him under clause 8 of the State Order aforesaid.
(2.) We have heard Sri V. K. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and also learned Standing Counsel.
(3.) The grievance of the Petitioner is that under clause 4 of the Central Order of 1977 the storage limits, in respect of the edible oil seeds and edible oil, are much higher than that provided by the State Order of 1989. With reference to clause-6 of Central Order of 1977, it has been strongly urged that as Central Order of 1977 specifically provides the Storage limits for edible oil seeds and edible oil in case of producer, the limits prescribed under clause-11 of State Order of 1989 cannot be applied against the Petitioner. In continuation of the aforesaid submission, it has been also submitted that the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') has further amended the Central Order of 1977 by pluses, Edible oilseeds and Edible oils (Storage Control) Second Amendment Order, 1991 which is later in time from the State Order of 1989 and since by the aforesaid amendment of Order 1991 the different stock limits have been provided in case of producer the storage limits prescribed by the State Order of 1989 shall cease to have any application in respect of Petitioner who is a manufacturer. Sri V. K. Gupta has further submitted that the State Government in exercise of the delegated powers cannot legislate the inconsistent provision in respect of the same filed for which the Central Government has already promulgated an order providing the specific provision in respect of the storage limits. It has also been submitted that in view of the storage limits provided by the State Order of 1989 day to-day working in the factory of the Petitioner has become difficult and the same has been rendered impracticable. Sri Gupta has farther submitted that the conditions mentioned in the licence issued to Petitioner under the State Order of 1989 are also arbitrary and unreasonable and in fact cannot be applied so far as the Petitioner is concerned. The grievance of the Petitioner is against the conditions enumerated above.;