Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The argument then is that though the impugned Act produces a loss, that loss can be ignored because the Government has taken steps under another Act to recoup the loss so occasioned. It is said that in the circumstances that prevail, namely, the increase in the home price, the restrictions imposed by the impugned Act cannot be said to be unreasonable, for on the whole they occasion no loss. This is indeed the principal contention of the respondents to establish that the restrictions are not unreasonable. Now a reference to the Essential Commodities Act under which the home price was increased has to be made. It was passed in the year 1955. It was not intended to earn foreign exchange; indeed it had nothing to do with foreign exchange or with helping the sugar industry. Section 3 of this Act provides:

I entirely agree that in deciding the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed by a statute, all the prevailing conditions and all the circumstances of the case have to be considered. But I am wholly unable to see that the conditions or circumstances, which seem to me to mean the same thing, can include that which depends solely on the arbitrary discretion or generosity or the sense of fair play of another. That, in my view, is not permissible. That is not a reasonable test. It is not reasonable to say that the validity of a statute would depend on something which the executive Government may do or undo at any time. The statute imposing the restrictions does not give any right that the Government would do something to make the restrictions reasonable. How can such a restriction be reasonable ? How can an Act which is prima facie unreasonable-and it is on that basis that the present argument arises-be held to be reasonable because of something to which it gives no right and the existence of which depends entirely on the choice of the executive Government ? Is it to be said that the restrictions imposed by a statute are reasonable because the Government has, when the question cropped up, done something which makes the restrictions reasonable though it was not bound to do that and though it is free to undo that which it has, done ? To say that would be to say that the Act is valid because the Government has for the time being chosen to make it so. This seems to me to be against all known principles of law. Furthermore, if the respondents contention was right a statute would then be legal when the Government chooses to do a thing and illegal when it undoes it and so on from time to time at the choice of the Government. That would be intolerable in any legal system. It was said that this is unavoidable and may happen in many cases. The following illustration was given. Suppose in famine conditions a statute was passed controlling free sale of foodstuff. Assume that the prevailing conditions made the restrictions put on free sale reasonable. Later, normal conditions returned which made the control of sales of foodstuff unnecessary and therefore unreasonable. The Act would thereupon become invalid. But further suppose that after sometime the famine conditions returned. The validity of the Act would then be restored. Hence, it is said that there would be nothing unusual in the Act being valid and invalid from time to time. But it seems to me that this is no analogy. The famine conditions imagined do not depend on the choice of the Government. So, assuming that the appearance and disappearance of famine conditions from time to time made the Act once valid and again invalid- as to which I do not feel called upon to say anything now that does not justify the adoption of a rule which would make the validity of an Act depend on the choice of the Government. If fluctuating validity is the result in one case, it does not follow that the same consequence would occur in' another and a totally different case. Again the validity of the Notification enhancing the home price seems to me to admit of grave doubt. I find nothing in the Essential Commodities Act nor naturally in the Sugar (Control) Order, 1955, which would authorise the Government to increase the price simply for the sake of recouping to the manufacturers the loss caused to them by the impugned Act. I have earlier set out the relevant provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. The power to fix the price of sugar given thereby can be exercised, " for maintaining or increasing the supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices". That power cannot therefore be exercised for recouping loss caused to a manufacturer by another Act, the object of which is to earn foreign exchange. If it is said that the Notification was issued for the purposes mentioned in the Essential Commodities Act, it becomes at once apparent, that the price fixed under it has no relation to the impugned Act and may have to be altered irrespective of the latter Act. I find it impossible to say that a Notification fixing the price of sugar on different condi- tions can be taken into account in deciding the reasonableness of the impugned Act which is entirely unconnected with these considerations.

of fraud on powers, it would be necessary to scrutinize all the documents, whether legislative or otherwise, which help to ascertain the truth. It may also be necessary to look into another Act to ascertain the pith and substance of an impugned Act. But the same principle cannot be invoked for ascertaining the reasonableness of legislative restrictions on fundamental rights.

Now coming to the facts of the present case, it is not suggested that the, Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and the impugned Act form part of one scheme of legislation. Indeed the Essential Commodities Act was enacted to provide in the interest of the general. public for control of production, supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce in, certain commodities. The provisions of the Act disclose that the object of the Act was to maintain or to increase supplies of essential commodities and to secure their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices. It was not one of its objects to stimulate foreign trade or to earn foreign exchange. It is said that the notification issued by the Central Government under s. 3 of that Act and r. 5 of the Order made thereunder was to off-set the loss expected to be incurred under the Ordinance, and therefore, the Act which supplanted the Ordinance, must be deemed to have been passed on the basis of that notification. To put it in other words, though the impugned Act does not confer any power or impose a duty on the Government to off-set the loss by fixing the rates of sugar, having regard to the expected loss, the mere fact that it could fix the rates under some other Act would make the Act good though otherwise bad. If this argument be accepted as correct, even if the notification was not issued, the existence of such a power under some other Act would be enough to validate the impugned Act, for, though the notification was not issued, it may be issued at a later stage. This argument, if accepted, would leave the impugned statute in a fluid state, its validity or otherwise depending upon the changing attitude of the authority concerned. I cannot, therefore, accept this contention.

" S. 7(1): Where sugar delivered by any owner falls short of the export quota fixed for it by any quantity (hereinafter referred to as the said quantity), there shall be levied and collected on so much of the sugar despatched from the factory for consumption in India as is equal to the said quantity, a duty of excise at the rate of seventeen rupees per maund."

Sub-s 2,3 and 4 provide for a machinery for imposing the penal duty and collecting the same from the defaulting owners of sugar. The scheme of the Act, therefore, is a self-contained one. The object is to provide for the export of sugar in the interest of public and that object is sought to be achieved by fixing the quota of sugar for export and distributing the same among the owners of factories, subject to the condition that in no case it should exceed twenty per cent. of the quantity of sugar produced in India in a particular season. The quantity is also fixed without detriment to the requirements for internal consumption. The apportionment of the quota among the various factories is objectively and impartially made. The quota delivered, or in case the owner is allowed to sell the sugar himself, the sugar purchased from the sale-proceeds, is exported, and the nett sale-proceeds are distributed among the owners in proportion to the quantity of sugar delivered by them. for export. The Act enables the Government to make payments on account. The Government also retains an over-all control presumably to see that no injustice is done to the parties concerned. The short question is whether the said restrictions on the freedom of the petitioners to acquire, hold and dispose of property, and carry on trade or business, are reasonable within the meaning of clauses (5) and (6) of Art. 19 of the Constitution. The restrictions must have a reasonable relation to the object which the legislature seeks to achieve and must not go in excess of that object. What is the object of the legislature ? The object of the legislature is to provide for the export of sugar in public interest. It cannot be, and indeed it is not, denied that at the time the Act was passed there was a sincere and serious national effort to industrialize our country with the avowed object of raising the economic standards of our people. One of the necessary conditions for industrializing our country is to start heavy industries, and that cannot be done unless the country earns foreign exchange to enable it to import plants for starting the same. It is also self-evident that it would be in the interests of sugar industry to build up a foreign market for that commodity. The object of the Act was, therefore, demonstrably to serve the national interest and the scheme evolved certainly had relation to the object sought to be achieved, for all the provisions of the Act were conceived in a genuine attempt to induce foreign export in sugar by co-operative effort. If so, the only objection to the restrictions imposed can be on the basis that the freedom was abridged or curtailed unduly or arbitrarily. But for the Act, the petitioners could have sold their sugar in the open market without exceeding the rates fixed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The correspondence filed in the ease, marked as annexures A, B and C, clearly demonstrates that both the industry as well as the State were equally interested to stimulate foreign trade and build up a foreign market. Under the scheme embodied in the Act, three restrictions are imposed on the owners of factories: