Guman Mal Lodha, J. - (1.) "Price Control" with "Cheers" or "tears" is the real question though it has been camouflaged in legal constitutional debate.
(2.) These 324 writ petitions have been filed by the Sugar Dealers of Rajasthan challenging the validity of the Levy Sugar Supply (Control) Order, 1979 (hereinafter to be called as 'Levy Sugar Order') Sugar Retention and Sale (By Recognised Dealers) Order, 1979 (hereinafter to be called as "Retention Order"), Sugar Price (Determination of 1978-79) Order 1979 (hereinafter to be called as 'the Price Determination Order'), and the various directions issued therein, including the orders issued by the Collectors of the various places and other administrative orders demanding sale of 65% of Sugar stock, to the State Government. Earlier 231 such writ petitions were heard by the Jaipur Bench of this Court and on March 14, 1980 by a composite order, this court dismissed those writ petitions and while doing so, adjudicated the controversies raised therein, summary of which contained in that judgment (Civil Writ Petn, No. 6 of 1980 and other 231 writs M/s. Chand Behari Lal Heeralal v. Union of India decided on 14-3-1980) is reproduced below for ready reference:- (1) the 'sine qua non' for invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, in a case of the present nature is that the petitioners should be able to thow, that they have been adversely affected by impugned orders, because grave injustice or substantial injustice, harm damage or loss of any kind have been caused to them. The deletion of 'substantial injury' from Article 226, which was introduced by the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution earlier, has not dispensed with, this important constitutional requirement, which has been insisted upon both in English Courts and the Indian Courts in equitable writ jurisdiction even earlier. (2) the petitioners have failed to show that the impugned orders have caused them any injustice, much less, grave injustice or substantial injustice, damage injury or harm. In fact howsoever unwittingly it may be, the Sugar (Retention and Sale by Recognised Dealers) Order, 1979 and Levy Sugar Supply (Control) Order, J979 coupled with de control of sugar price has resulted in a 'dealers paradise' as on each quintal of sugar effected by these orders, each one of them would earn additional profit of Rs. 16.50/- to Rs. 41/-per quintal. The preliminary objections of the respondents is liable to be accepted and the writs deserve to be dismissed on this ground alone; (3) the fixation of the 'controlled price' at Rs. 280/- per quintal under C1ause 4 of the 'Retention Order' is legal as it has been done under Section 3 (2) (c) of the Act; (4) the 'Retention and Levy Orders' fully comply with the requirements of Section 3 (3) of the Essential Commodities Act and full effect has been given to Clause (a), (b) and Clause (c) of it; (5) the prices to be paid to the dealer for levy has been governed by Section 3 (3) of the Act and Section 3 (3A) has got no relevancy to it, nor it is applicable in the present case. (6) the market price admittedly being much more than Rs. 280/- per quintal, the respondents were justified in applying Clause (a) and Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act; (7) since the market price prevailing in the area was much more than to Rupees 280/- per quintal having shooted up like a 'gas balloon' to Rs. 450/- to 600/- per quintal, the functionaries of the State, were justified in not making attempt for any agreement with the dealers, under Section 3 (3) (a) of the Act and were further justified in calculating the price under Sub-clause (b) of Section 3 (3) of the Act, at the rate of Rs. 280/- per quintal. (8) the Food Commissioner other State functionaries and the Collectors were duly authorised to take levy from the dealers, under the Retention and Levy Orders; (9) the explanation of Clause (3) of the Retention Order, for including the sugar in 'pipe line' having been delivered or despatched before the date 17-12-79 to the dealers, either in their own name or in the name of the bearer, is valid; (10) all those despatches which were made before 17-12-79 to the dealers but were received later on, would be treated as covered by explanation; (11) the inclusion of the sugar in pipe line in the closing stock of the 17th Dec., 1979 would not result in prosecution of any dealer on the ground that the stock if so, taken would increase the limit of the permissible stock for the licence or the licensing order; (12) the fixation of price at the rate of Rs. 280/- per quintal for the dealer, is not violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution; (13) taking of the levy at price @ Rs. 280/- per quintal from the dealers of the 65% of the closing Stock of Dec., 1979 is not violative of Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution; (14) Article 300-A of the Constitution has not been violated because the Retention & Levy Orders, both have been enacted under the Essential Commodities Act, and are valid, and thus even if the property is being taken away, it is under the authority of law; (15) Article 301 of the Constitution has not been violated, because there has been no restrictions on any trade or business without authority of law; (16) the Retention and Levy Orders are socio-economic legislation; and though they are orders issued by the delegated legislative authority they are for fair distribution, with the object, to provide to the consumer, sugar at a fair price, and therefore, even if some loss is caused to a few with corresponding benefit to larger chunks of people, the same is justified both under the Constitution and the law; (17) the writ petitions cannot succeed, on any ground and since they are even liable to be dismissed on preliminary, objection, the respondents are entitled to be allowed costs from the petitioners.
(3.) After the above judgment of Rajasthan High Court, Delhi High Court in Kasturi Lal Rakesh Kumar v. Union of India (Civil Writ Petal. No. 25/80) dismissed the similar writ petitions on Mar, 21, 1980 and declared that the Levy and Retention Orders are valid.;