Delhi High Court
Ballarpur Industries Ltd. vs Union Of India on 24 May, 1996
Equivalent citations: AIR1997DELHI1, 63(1996)DLT306, 1996(38)DRJ327, AIR 1997 DELHI 1, ILR(DEL) 1996 (2) DEL 623, 1996 (2) FAC 253, (1996) 2 FAC 253, (1996) 38 DRJ 327, (1996) ILR 2 DEL 623
JUDGMENT C.M. Nayar, J.
(1) The present judgment will dispose of two petitions being C.W.P.No-5424/93 (Ballarpur Industries Ltd. and others v. Union of India and others) and C.W.P.No-546/1995 (M/s Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others). The First petition is filed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned notification dated 26th August, 1993 and for an appropriate order or direction including writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from in any manner implementing and acting upon or enforcing the provisions of the aforesaid notification. It may only be necessary to state the facts of the first petition as both the petitions raise common questions of law in respect of the challenge to the same notification.
(2) Petitioner No.1 is engaged in the business of paper, Chemicals, edible oils etc. and is alleged to be one of the biggest manufacturer of edible oils with large turnover. Petitioner No.2 is engaged in the business of dry-fruits and petitioner No.3 is engaged in the business of manufacturing of labels and the annual turnover is estimated to be Rs.5.1 crores. Similarly, petitioner No.4 is engaged in the business of manufacturing of labels. The respondents are under the Ministry of Food and Supplies and, therefore, fall within the definition of 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The said respondents through their officers have powers to prosecute the petitioners for violating the provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The object which is sought to be achieved by the Act, it is contended, is to lay down the standards of weights and measures or number pertaining to different commodities in conformation with the standards laid down by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. The basic intention of the Act is that the commodities commonly used by people should be packed in rationalised standards quantities by weight, measure or number so as to facilitate the purchase and comparison of price by the people. Thus the prices are to be mentioned for comparison with the net quantity sought to be sold. The main controversy in these petitions is the manner in which the information is sought to be printed on the label to be affixed for each item of goods which is put up in the market for sale. Section 2(n) of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') defines the label and reads as follows: "2. Definitions In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (n) "label" means any written, marked, stamped, printed, or graphic matter affixed to, or appearing upon, any commodity or package containing any commodity;"
(3) The commodities in package form must bear the label when intended to be sold or distributed in the course of inter-state trade or commerce. Section 39 of the Act, which is of relevance and has been cited by the learned counsel may also be reproduced as under: "QUANTITIES and origin of commodities in packaged form to be declared :- (1) No person shall :- (a) make, manufacture, pack, sell or cause to be packed or sold ; or (b) distribute, deliver, or cause to be distributed or delivered ; or (c) offer, expose or possess for sale, any commodity in packaged form to which this Part applies unless such package bears thereon or on a label securely attached thereto a definite, plain and conspicuous declaration, made in the prescribed manner, of :- (i) the identity of the commodity in the package ; (ii) the, net quantity, in terms of the standard unit of weight or measure, of the commodity in the package ; (iii) where the commodity is packaged or sold by number, the accurate number of the commodity contained in the package ; (iv) the unit sale price of the commodity in the package ; and (v) the sale price of the package. Explanation :- In this sub-section, the expression "unit sale price" means the price according to such unit of weight, measure or number as may be prescribed (2) Every package to which this Part applies shall bear thereon the name of the manufacturer and also of the packer or distributor. (3) Where the package of a commodity to which this Part applies or the label thereon bears a representation as to the number of servings, of the commodity contained therein, such package or label shall also bear a statement as to the net quantity (in terms of weight, measure or number) of each such serving. (4) The statement on a package or label as to the net weight, measure or number of the contents thereof shall not include any expression which tends to qualify such weight, measure or number : Provided that the Central Government may, by rules, specify the commodities, the weight or measure of which is likely to increase or decrease beyond the prescribed tolerance limits by reason of climatic variations ; and it shall be lawful for the manufacturer or packer of the commodity so specified to qualify the statement as to the net content of such commodity by the use of the words "when packed".
Explanation :- The words "when packed" shall not be used in any case except a case to which the proviso to sub-section (4) applies. (5) Where the Central Government has reason to believe that there is undue proliferation of weight, measure or number in which any commodity is, or reasonably comparable commodities are, being packed for sale, distribution or delivery and such undue proliferation impairs in the opinion of that Government, the reasonable ability of the consumer to make a comparative assessment of the prices after considering the net quantity or number of such commodity, that Government may direct the manufacturers and also the packers or distributors to sell, distribute or deliver such commodity in such standard quantities or number as may be prescribed. (6) Whenever the retail price of a commodity in packaged form to which this Chapter applies is slated in any advertisement, there shall be included in the advertisement, a conspicuous declaration as to the net quantity or number of the commodity contained in the package and retail unit sale price thereof. (7) No person shall sell, distribute or deliver for sale a package containing a commodity which is filled less than the prescribed capacity of such package except where it is proved by such person that the package was so filled with a view to- (a) giving protection to the contents of such package, or (b) meeting the requirements of machines used for enclosing the contents of such package. (8) The Central Government may, by rules, specify such reasonable variations in the net contents of the commodity in a package as may be caused by the method of packing or the ordinary exposure which may be undergone by such commodity after it has been introduced in trade or commerce. (9) The Central Government may, by rules, specify the classes of commodities or packages in relation to which all or any of the provisions of this section shall not apply or shall apply with such exceptions or modifications as may be specified therein."
(4) Section 83 confers the powers on the Central Government to make Rules by notification for carrying out the provisions of this Act. It is contended that any rule which is contrary to the objects sought to he achieved by the Act, is ultravires of the Act and is liable to be struck down. The rules facilitate in carrying on the objects of the Act to establish standards of weights, measures or numbers. Rule 4 of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') reads as under: 31 "4.Regulation for pre-packing and sale etc., of commodities in packaged form On and from the commencement of these rules, no person shall pre-pack, or cause or permit to be pre-packed any commodity for sale, distribution or delivery unless the package in which the commodity is pre-packed bears thereon, or on a label securely affixed thereto, such declarations as are required to be made under these rules."
The relevant portion of Rule 6 deals with the declarations to be made on every package is to the following effect:
(6) Declarations to be made on every package (1) Every package shall bear thereon or on a label securely affixed thereto a definite, plain and conspicuous declaration, made in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter as, to :- (a) the name and address of the manufacturer, or where the manufacturer is not the packer, of the packer or with the written consent of the manufacturer, of the manufacturer ; (b) the common or generic names of the commodity contained in the package; Explanation :- Generic name in relation to a commodity means the name of the genus of the commodity, for example, in the case of common salt, sodium chloride is the generic name. (c) the net quantity, in terms of the standard unit of weight or measure, of the commodity contained in the package or where the commodity is packed or sold by number, the number of the commodity contained in the package; (d) the month and year in which the commodity is manufactured or pre-packed; (c) the unit (retail sale price) of the commodity contained in the package : Provided that this declaration is not necessary in the case of packages packed in the standard quantities specified in the Third Schedule and the Sixth Schedule of these rules : Provided Further that such declaration shall not be necessary in the case of packages of those commodities which are not specified in the Third Schedule but are packed in quantities of (50g), 100g, 200g, 500g, 1 kg, 2 kg, 5 kg or in multiples of 5 kg or in (50 ml), 100 ml, 200 ml, 500 ml, 1 litre, 2 litres, 5 litres and in multiples of 5 litres;) (f) the (retail sale price) of the package ; (g) where the sizes of the commodity contained in the package arc relevant, the dimensions of the commodity contained in the package and if the dimensions of the different pieces are different, the dimensions of each such different piece ; (h) such other matters as arc specified in these rules : Provided that :- (A) no declaration as to the month and year in which the commodity is manufactured or pre-packed shall be required to be made on :- (i) any bottle containing liquid milk, liquid beverages containing milk as an ingredient, soft drink, ready-to-serve fruit beverages, or the like. which is returnable by the consumer for being refilled : (ii) any package containing bread and any unmanned package of (a) vegetables (b) fruits (c) ice-cream (d) butter (f) fish (g) meat or (h) any other like commodity ; (ii-a) liquid milk in pouches; (iii) any package containing metal lic product; (iv) any cylinder containing liquified petroleum gas or any other gas ; (v) any package containing Chemical fertilizer ; (B) where any packaging material bearing thereon the month in which any commodity was expected to have been pre- packed is not exhausted during that month, such packaging material may be used for pre-packing the concerned commodity produced or manufactured during the next succeeding month and not thereafter, but the Central Government may, if it is satisfied that such packaging material could not be exhausted during the period aforesaid by reason of any circumstance beyond the control of the manufacturer or packer, as the case may be, extend the time during which such packaging material may be used, and, where any such packaging material is exhausted before the expiry of the month indicated thereon, the packaging material intended to be used during the next succeeding month may be used for pre-packing the concerned commodity: (C).......... ...." Rule 23 may be reproduced as under: 23. Provisions relating to wholesale dealer and retail dealers :- (1) No wholesale dealer or retail dealer shall sell, distribute, deliver, display or store for sale any commodity in the packaged form unless the package complies with, in all respects, the provisions of the Act and these rules. (2) No retail dealer or other person including manufacturer, packer and wholesale dealer shall make any sale of any commodity in packaged form at a price exceeding the retail sale price thereof. Explanation :- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that a sale, distribution or delivery by a wholesale dealer to a retail dealer or other person is a 'retail sale' within the meaning of this sub-rule, (4) Where, after any commodity has been pre-packed for sale, any tax payable in relation to such commodity is revised, the retail dealer or any other person shall not make any retail sale of such commodity at a price excecding the revised retail sale price, communicated to him by the manufacturer, or where the manufacturer is not the packer, the packer and it shall be the duly of the manufacturer or packer, as the case may be, to indicate by not less than two advertisements in one or more newspapers and also by circulation of notices to the dealers and to the Director in the Central Government and Controllers of Legal Metrology in the States and Union Territories, the revised prices of such packages but the difference between the price marked on the package and the revised price shall not, in any case, be higher than the extent of increase in the tax or in the case of imposition of fresh lax higher than the fresh tax so imposed : Provided that publication in any newspaper, of such revised price shall not be necessary where such revision is due to any increase in, or in imposition of, any tax payable under any law made by the State Legislatures : Provided Further that the retail dealer or other person shall not charge such revised prices in relation to any packages except those packages which bear marking indicating that they were pre-packed in the month in which such tax has been revised or fresh tax has been imposed or in the month immediately following the month aforesaid : Provided Also that where the revised prices are lower than the price marked on the package the retail dealer or other person shall not charge any price in excess of the revised price, irrespective of the month in which the commodity was pre-packed. (5) Nothing in sub-rule (4) shall apply to a package which is not required, under these rules to indicate the month and the year in which it was pre-packed. (6) No retail dealer or other person shall obliterate, smudge or alter the retail sale price, indicated by the manufacturer or the packer, as the case may be, on the package or on the label affixed thereto. (7) The manufacturer or packer shall not alter the price on the wrapper once printed and used for packing. The provision of Rule 23(7) which were amended by notification dated 26th August, 1993 is presently in challenge in these writ petitions. The challenge is based on the following arguments: (a) The amendment dated 26th August, 1993 to the rules, being in the nature of delegated/subordinate legislation in exercise of powers under Sections 83 and 39, deleting explanation to Rule 4 thereof and inserting sub-rule 7 in Rule 23 cannot be permitted; (b) The non statutory circulars issued by the respondents seeking to thereby amplify the scope of the said amendment interpreting in an untenably wide manner and to even restrict and alter the scheme of the parent Act purely on the ipsi dixit of the respondents cannot be sustained; (c) The impugned actions are ultravires the parent Act, arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory. Section 2(n) which defines labels to mean "any written, marked, stamped, printed or graphic matter affixed to or appearing on any commodity or packing containing any commodity" and such label and stickers can be used as it is permissible under the Act and, therefore, the amendment to rule 4 cannot lake away this right of the petitioners; (d) the alleged amendment is purported to be for the purposes of furtherance of public interest. In fact, it does not serve any public interest. The circulars while baring use of sticker labels by manufacturers to make statutory declarations, permit the manufacturers to blank out the earlier declaration and reprint the revised declarations by other similarly placed methods, as provided under Section 2(n)(e) the impugned actions are excessive and colourable exercise of powers which in fact extend the state control on pricing of free market commodities indirectly and illegally, in spite of the fact that the Parliament has chosen not to make a declaration under Entry 52 of List I or Entry 33 of List Iii of the Seventh schedule to the Constitution of India, unlike the regulated commodities under the Essential Commodities Act or the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act. The Parent Act has, in any case, been enacted to establish standards of weights and measures pursuant to the Maitra Committee Report and incorporates consumer interest in terms of display of relevant information on pre-packed commodities. Any false or incomplete or misleading display of information is a punishable offence under Section 51 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 besides under penal statute etc. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned amendment is to be incorporated and given effect to in accordance with the settled canons of interpretation of statutes, keeping in view the provisions and objects of the Parent Act and, therefore, the present action is unauthorised, excessive and ultravires of the Parent Act.
(5) The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has contended that the impugned amendment has been introduced to protect the interest of the consumer. He has referred to the order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 17th December, 1992 (at page 134 of the paper book) where the Commission has held that the act of pasting stickers by the manufacturer or packer with their logo on it to indicate revised price, cannot be said to be not in non- conformity with the Standards of Weights and Measures Act (packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 or the Essential Commodities Act. Therefore, the necessity for amendment was considered as questions were raised in Parliament that the interest of the consumer has not been properly safeguarded. There was no option but to amend the Rules and clarify the purpose behind the Act. He has further referred me to the communication dated 7th October, 1993 received from Federation of All India Automobile Spare Parts Dealers' Association (page 148 of the paper book) where the only grievance has been made that the amendment has been sudden and has not given any time for the dealers to act. The Government in his representation was, therefore, requested to give a cut off date for the amendment to be implemented so that all the existing packages packed before the cut off date could be sold as such without attracting penal action. The purpose of the amendment was further explained by the Government of India in a communication dated 15th September, 1993 to M/s Vanaspati Manufacturers Association (page 196 of the paper book) which reads as follows: NO.WM-9(7)/93Government of India Ministry of Civil Supplies, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution 12-A, Jam Nagar House, New Delhi - 110011 Dated : 15th September,1993 To: M/s Vanaspati manufacturers Association of India, 903, Akash deep Building, 26-A, Barakhamba Road New Delhi - 110001 Subject : Notification No. Gsr 578 A 26 August, 1993 regarding. Sir, Kindly refer to your representation No.R:2: dated 6th September, 1993 regarding the above mentioned Notification amending certain provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. The Government decided to withdraw the relevant provisions from the Rule permitting revision of prices by use of stickers by deleting explanation clause to Rule-4 and adding a sub-clause 23 (7) with immediate effect. However, there are possibilities of packages lying in the market or in the pipeline with stickers before the enactment of this amendment. So, to prevent any inconvenience to the traders, enforcement officials of Weights and Measures in the States were directed by this Ministry not to book any cases, in respect of stickers on packages with August and September date marking. Instructions have also been issued to the States to give wide publicity of this amendment so that manufacturers/packers/trade community may get time for proper planning at their end to switch over to the requirement of rule. Regarding your second point, it is stated that alteration of price on the package is prohibited only in respect of those wrappers which are already used for packaging. The intention of the Rule is that the practice of putting a price sticker on the package should not be resorted to by the manufacturer also. You may also give a wide publicity to this circular among your members for their information. Yours faithfully, sd/- (SATHI NAIR) Joint SECRETARY.
(6) Moreover, the manufacturer or the retailer has been amply protected by the provision of amendment to sub-rule 4 of Rule 23 relating to the revision of price by an appropriate publication in any newspaper. The amended provision reads as follows: "(4)Where, after any commodity has been pre-packed for sale, any tax payable in relation to such commodity is revised, the retail dealer or any other person shall not make any retail sale of such commodity at a price exceeding the revised retail sale price, communicated to him by the manufacturer, or where the manufacturer is not the packer, the packer and it shall be the duty of the manufacturer or packer, as the case may be, to indicate by not less than two advertisements in one or more newspapers and also by circulation of notices to the dealers and to the Director in the Central Government and Controllers of Legal Metrology in the States and Union Territories, the revised prices of such packages but the difference between the price marked on the package and the revised price shall not, in any case, be higher than the extent of increase in the tax or in the case of imposition of fresh tax higher than the fresh tax so imposed: Provided that publication in any newspaper, of such revised price shall not be necessary where such revision is due to any increase in, or in imposition of, any tax payable under any law made by the State Legislatures: Provided Further that the retail dealer or other person shall not charge such revised prices in relation to any packages except those packages which bear marking, indicating that they were pre-packed in the month in which such tax has been revised or fresh tax has been imposed or in the month immediately following the month aforesaid: Provided Also that where the revised prices are lower than the price marked on the package the retail dealer or other person shall not charge any price in excess of the revised price, irrespective of the month in which the commodity was pre-packed."
(7) The matter was also considered by the 'Expert Committee on Best Method of determining the declaration of retail sale price on pre-packed commodities', as appointed by the Ministry of Civil Supplies, Consumer Affairs & Public Distribution, New Delhi on 28th February, 1994. The use of stickers (small labels) on pre-packages was examined in detail and the following paragraphs (Chapter III) of the report may be of some relevance which read as under: "WHILE discussing the issue of the use of stickers for altering the declarations made by manufacturers or for making first time declarations, the Committee considered the representation of M/s Marking System Association. However all Committee Members rejected the demand outright. They felt that the industries had already adjusted their practice in this regard so that the need for altering the declarations already made did not occur. They further stressed that if such a provision was made in the Rules, it would be misused at various levels and the manufacturers would be held responsible. The Committee therefore recommended that the use of stickers to alter the Mrp declaration made by the manufacturer/packer should not be permitted. The Committee further recommended that manufacturer/packers should also not be allowed to use stickers for declaring the price as it would ultimately lead to free availability of such stickers in the market for possible mis- use."
(8) The purpose of amendment, therefore, can be easily termed as an action to safeguard and protect the rights of the consumer as it was often noticed that "manufacturers are putting 4 or 5 stickers on packed goods and changing at times and changing prices too often." This was clearly felt by Shri A.K.Antony, the then Hon'ble Minister of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs. From practical point of view, it cannot be said that the statement of objects and reasons for introduction of provisions as contained in Rule 23(7) was based on anything but for the protection of the consumer.
(9) The learned counsel for the respondents has aptly referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court as reported in M/s Prag Ice & Oil Mills and another etc. etc. v. Union of India, to highlight the powers of the Central Government to fix the prices of essential commodities, particularly, when it is felt that the interest of the consumer has to be kept on prime consideration. Paragraphs 58 and 59 of this judgment read as follows: "58.Section 3(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, empowers the Central Government to fix the prices of essential commodities if it is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at a fair price. Sub-section (2) (c) of S.3 provides that without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by sub-section (1), an order made under that sub-section may provide for controlling the price at which any essential commodity may be bought or sold. The dominant purpose of these provisions is to ensure the availability of essential commodities to the consumers at a fair price. And though patent injustice to the producer is not to be encouraged, a reasonable return on investment or a reasonable rate of profit is not the sine qua non of the validity of action taken in furtherance of the powers conferred by S.3(1) and S.3(2)(c) of the Essential Commodities Act. The interest of the consumer has to be kept in the forefront and the prime consideration that an essential commodity ought to be made available to the common man at a fair price must rank in priority over every other consideration." "59.We are not impressed by the play of statistics on the part of the petitioners which is designed to show that as a result of the Price Control Order, they are faced with a loss of about Rs.5.00 per kilogram on the sale of mustard oil. We will ignore, while we are on this point, the pronounced reiteration of the respondent that the petitioners have made huge profits in past years and that their concerns are sufficiently prosperous to be able to absorb a small loss for a temporary period. But even in the absence of satisfactory proof of the extent of the profits made by the petitioners in past years, we are of the opinion that the circumstance that the petitioners may have to suffer a loss over a short period immediately following upon the promulgation of the Price Control Order will not render the Order constitutionally invalid. The interplay of economic factors and the laws of demand and supply are bound eventually to have their impact on the pattern of prices prevailing in the market. If the dealer cannot lawfully sell the finished product at more than Rs.10.00 per kilogram, the price of raw material is bound to adjust itself to the price of the product. Subsequent events unmistakably demonstrate the effect of such interplay and the favourable reaction which the Price Control Order has produced on the price of mustard seed. But above all things, it is necessary to bear in mind in matters of the present nature what Krishna Iyer, J. said in B.Banerjee v. Anita Pan, that such provisions have to be. viewed through a socially constructive, not legally captious microscope to discover a glaring unconstitutional infirmity, that when laws affecting large chunks of the community are enacted stray misfortunes are inevitable and that social legislation without tears, affecting vested rights, is virtually impossible."
(10) The law is well settled that it is permissible to look into the circumstances which prevailed at the time when the law was passed and which necessitated the passing of that law to determine the purpose or object of the legislation. It was so stated in Shashikant Laxman Kale and another v. Union of India and another . Paragraphs 16 and 17 of this judgment may be reproduced as under: "For determining the purpose or object of the legislation, it is permissible to look into the circumstances which prevailed at the time when the law was passed and which necessitated the passing of that law. For the limited purpose of appreciating the background and the antecedent factual matrix leading to the legislation, it is permissible to look into the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill which actuated the step to provide a remedy for the then existing malady. In A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar v. M.Venkitachalam Potti, , the Statement of Objects and Reasons was used for judging the reasonableness of a classification made in an enactment to see if it infringed or was contrary to the constitution. In that decision for determining the question, even affidavit on behalf of the State of "the circumstances which prevailed at the time when the law there under consideration had been passed and which necessitated the passing of that law" was relied on. It was reiterated in State of West Bengal v. Union of India - that the Statement and Objects and Reasons accompanying a Bill, when introduced in Parliament, can be used for the limited purpose of understanding the background and the antecedent state of affairs leading upto the legislation'. Similarly, in Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India, a challenge to the validity of classification was repelled placing reliance on an affidavit filed on behalf of the Central Board of Revenue disclosing the true object of enacting the impugned provision in the Income-tax Act. 17. Not only this, to sustain the presumption of constitutionality, consideration may be had even to matters of common knowledge; the history of the times; and every conceivable state of facts existing at the time of legislation which can be assumed. Even though for the purpose of construing the meaning of the enacted provision, it is not permissible to use these aids, yet it is permissible to look into the historical facts and surrounding circumstances for ascertaining the evil sought to be remedied. The distinction between the purpose or object of the legislation and the legislative intention, indicated earlier, is significant in this exercise to emphasis the availability of larger material to the Court for reliance when determining the purpose or object of the legislation as distinguished from the meaning of the enacted provision."
(11) While construing a legislation like the present Act and the notification issued thereunder a liberal construction should be placed on the provision so that the purpose of the legislation may be allowed to be achieved rather than frustrated and stultified. This view is taken in the judgment of the Supreme Court as reported in Employees State Insurance Corporation v. R.K. Swamy and others . Paragraph 13 of this judgment reads as follows: "IN the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shibu Metal Works (ibid) this court noted that the Employees Provident Fund Act 'was intended to serve a beneficent purpose. The object which the Act purported to achieve was to require that appropriate provision should be made for employees employed in establishments to which the Act applied. That meant that in construing the material provisions of such an Act if two views were reasonably possible, the courts should prefer the view which helped the achievement of the object. When the words used in an entry were capable of a narrow or a broad construction, each construction being reasonably possible, and it appeared that the broad construction would help the furtherance of the object, then it was necessary to prefer that construction. This rule postulated that there was a competition between two constructions, each one of which was reasonably possible. The rule did not justify straining words or putting an unnatural or unreasonable meaning on them just for the purpose of introducing a broader construction."
(12) The impugned notification may now be examined. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the provisions, as contained in the Act were sufficient to safeguard the interest of the consumer and there was no necessity to amend them by introducing the impugned notification. It is, therefore, argued that the manufacturer or the retailer, as the case may be, is permitted to use the label which means any written marks,statements printed, graphic matter affixed to or appearing upon any commodity or package containing any commodity as defined in Section 2(n). Similarly, Section 39 lays down the relevant provisions for the manufacturer to comply and give details of the information as referred to, which will indicate that sufficient safeguards are provided in the provision and there was no necessity of banning the use of label or the sticker, as the case may be. This reasoning is perhaps based on misapprehension as the amendment does not, in any manner ban the use of the label or the sticker. It only implies that the manufacturer or packer shall not alter the price on the wrapper once printed or used for packing. Therefore, the only purpose behind the new provision is that all the information which is to be given in terms of the statute can be printed on one label or sticker and there is no need to put repeated labels or stickers which practice has often been used most of the time to change the price. In this background it can easily be held that the amendment is merely of a clarificatory nature and does not, in any manner, cause injustice to the petitioners or goes contrary to the provisions of the Act. The information which was earlier printed on the label or sticker, sometimes by means of separate labels or stickers, has now to be incorporated in one label and affix to the goods which will obviously be for the benefit of the consumer as the price tag or sticker would not be repeatedly affixed to alter the price. The fear of the petitioner, accordingly, cannot be held to be justified as the exercise is merely for the benefit of the consumer without causing any hardship to the manufacturer or packer, as the case may be, as the amendment does not, in any manner, ban the use of label. The information, as provided under the provisions of the Act, has to be affixed on one wrapper or label and the manufacturer shall not alter the price once printed and used for packing. It cannot, therefore, be understood as to how the amendment causes hardship to the petitioners. It is quite possible that some labels will have to go waste when the prices change but that will happen even in cases where the expiry date of the goods passes and the stocks are not yet sold. The manufacturer will have to reprint the label even in that eventuality. The proposed amendment cannot, therefore, in any manner be held to be beyond the provisions of the Act and liable to be struck down on that count.
(13) The purpose of the enactment is to have a firm price affixation and when it is in the nature of legislative action based on objective criteria founded on relevant material, no rule of natural justice is applicable to any such order. The action of the Authority should only be inspired by reasons and there must not be any extraneous consideration. The question as to whether the impugned notification is ultra vires the Parent Act and is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory is amply answered by the Supreme Court in M/s Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd and another v. Union of India and others and the law stated in paragraphs 47,48 and 52 is of relevance which read as follows: "47.Power delegated by statute is limited by its terms and subordinate to its objects. The delegate must act in good faith, reasonably, intra vires the power granted, and on relevant consideration of material facts. All his decisions, whether characterised as legislative or administrative or quasi- judicial, must be in harmony with the Constitution and other laws of the land. They must be "reasonably related to the purposes of the enabling legislation". See Leila Mourning v. Family Publications Service (1973) 411 Us 356, 36 Law Ed. 2d 318. If they are manifestly unjust or oppressive or outrageous or directed to an unauthorised end or do not tend in some degree to the accomplishment of the objects of delegation, courts might well say, "Parliament never intended to give authority to make such rules; they are unreasonable and ultra vires": per Lord Russel of Killowen, C.J. in Kruse v. Johnson (1898) 2 Qb 91,99. 48. The doctrine of judicial review implies that the repository of power acts within the bounds of the power delegated and he does not abuse his power. He must act reasonably and in good faith. It is not only sufficient that an instrument is in travires the parent Act, but it must also be consistent with the constitutional principles: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India . The true position, therefore, is that any act of the repository of power, whether legislative or administrative or quasi-judicial, is open to challenge if it is in conflict with the Constitution or the governing Act or the general principles of the law of the land or it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair minded authority could ever have made it."
(14) The challenge to the impugned notification, as violative of the parent Act cannot, therefore, be sustained and is liable to be rejected. Lastly, to clarify my own doubts I asked the learned counsel appearing for the Government, as to whether, the use of sticker will be banned even when the manufacturer or the retailer, as the case may, wants to reduce the price. He has fairly conceded that the Government will not be rigid in such a situation as the main purpose is to curtail the mal-practices of affixing repeated labels and stickers to increase the price which is detrimental to the interest of the consumer. The clarification has been given by the Government that where the retail sale price indicated on the sticker is less than the Mrp declared by the manufacturer and the Mrp declaration by the manufacturer is not obliterated the affixing of sticker by dealers to indicate the retail sale price of the pre-packed commodity was not prohibited.
(15) For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in these petitions and the same are, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.