P.C. Pandit, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 228/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the order dated 10th January, 1963 passed by the Cane Commissioner, Punjab, Respondent No. 2, under Rule 10 -A of the Rules framed under the Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase and Supply) Act, 1953 (Act 40 of 1953) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) ACCORDING to the allegations of the Petitioner, he is a resident of village Kehri Dabdalan, tehsil Thanesar, district Karnal. He is a cane -grower of the area as defined in the Act. He also owns a power crasher and has since 1961 been carrying on the business of sugarcane crushing and gur making. For the purpose of this business, he purchases sugarcane from other cane -growers of the area and also utilizes the sugarcane grown by himself. Besides this, he also crushes sugarcane at his power crusher and makes gur therefrom for other cane -growers of the area after charging some money. The total number of persons working in his business varies from 8 to 12. His power -crusher, therefore does not fall within the definition of 'factory' under the Act. Respondent No. 2 purporting to act under Rule 10 -A of the Rules framed under the Act passed the following impugned order: In exercise of the powers conferred upon me by Rule 10 -A of the Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase and Supply) (First Amendment) Rules, 1963, I Bhai Sher Jang Singh, I. A. S., Cane Commissioner, Punjab, hereby specify the areas noted against each factory, the entire cane of which the Agent of the factory shall be bound to purchase, and the cane -growers or the Cane -growers Co -operative Societies shall be bound to sell to the said Agent during the crushing season 1962 -63: JUDGEMENT_20_LAWS(P&H)4_1963.htm (a) Area within ten miles radius of the factory gate. (b) Area within 5 miles radius of the following centres: - (1) Barara (2) Kesri (3) Mustafabad (4) Shahzadpur (5) Jaidhri (6) Chhachhrauli (7) Pabni (8) Budheri (9) Bhambholi (10) Jathlana (11) Radaur (12) Barshami (13) Kishenpura (14) GopalMochin (15) Ladwa (16) Indiri (17) Bhita (18) Neohari (19) Muthana (20) Sardheri (21) Sadhaura (22) ThanaChapar (23) Maulana (24) Jalubi. The said order was served on the Petitioner on 16th January, 1963. This has led to the filing of the present petition. 3. It may be mentioned that it is common ground that on 4th March 1963 the Punjab Government issued Notification No. 69(M) -Agr. II (VI) -63/1033 by which in pursuance of the provisions of Sub -rule (2) of Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, they have prohibited the production of gur by the use of sugarcane crushers operated by power in this area. In view of this notification, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that they would not press their objections in the petition in so far as they relate to the production of gur by the use of sugarcane crushers operated by power
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner, however, challenged this order on the following two grounds: (1) That it is based on the provisions of Section 14(4) of the Act, which violate the fundamental rights guaranteed to the Petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as it leaves room for the Prescribed Authority to discriminate between the various cane -growers of the assigned area by compelling some of them to sell their entire cane to the factory and leaving others to dispose it of in any manner they liked. In this connection, learned Counsel contended that the Prescribed Authority could do so by specifying any area within the assigned area of a factory, the entire cane of which the cane -growers were bound to sell to the factory. Learned Counsel further submitted that unfettered powers had been given to the Prescribed Authority to specify any area within the assigned area and neither the provisions of this Act nor the Rules framed thereunder lay down any principles on the basis of which he could choose any particular area out of the assigned area ; and (2) that the provisions of Section 14(4) of the Act which are in the following terms, are in contravention of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner under Article 19(1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution: - S. 14(1) * * * * (4) It shall be competent for the prescribed authority to specify any area within the assigned area of a factory, the entire cane of which area the agent of the said factory shall be bound to purchase, and the cane -growers or Cane -growers' Co -operative Society shall be bound to sell to the said agent. He submitted that by directing him to sell his entire cane to the factory, unreasonable restrictions had been placed on his right to hold and dispose of his property. He could not carry on his business of manufacture of gur by means of animal -driven crushers. Under this order he was being prohibited even from manufacturing gur for his domestic purpose.;