9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(f), and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 2. Validity of the Mustard Oil (Price Control) Order, 1977 under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 3. Effect of placing the Essential Commodities Act in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. 4. Reasonableness of the price fixation of mustard oil at Rs. 10 per kilogram. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(f), and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution: The petitioners argued that the Mustard Oil (Price Control) Order, 1977 violated their fundamental rights to property and to carry on trade or business. They contended that the price fixation at Rs. 10 per kilogram was arbitrary and did not consider regional variations in the cost of procurement and other factors. The Court held that the petitioners failed to provide specific data to support their claim of discrimination. The Court emphasized that the dominant purpose of price fixation under the Essential Commodities Act is to ensure the availability of essential commodities to consumers at fair prices. The interest of the consumer must be prioritized over the profit margins of producers. The Court found that the price fixation was not so patently unreasonable as to violate the petitioners' rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(f), and 19(1)(g). 2. Validity of the Mustard Oil (Price Control) Order, 1977 under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955: The petitioners challenged the validity of the Price Control Order on the ground that it was outside the scope of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. The Court held that Section 3(1) of the Act empowers the Central Government to regulate or prohibit the production, supply, and distribution of essential commodities to ensure their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices. The Court found that the Price Control Order was within the scope of Section 3 and served the purpose of controlling the price of mustard oil to make it affordable for consumers. The Court emphasized that the necessity or expediency of such measures is a matter of subjective assessment by the government, and the Court should not interfere with economic policies unless they are patently unreasonable. 3. Effect of placing the Essential Commodities Act in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution: The petitioners argued that placing the Essential Commodities Act in the Ninth Schedule did not protect the Price Control Order from being challenged under Part III of the Constitution. The Court agreed that Article 31B, which protects laws in the Ninth Schedule from being challenged on the ground of inconsistency with fundamental rights, does not extend to orders or notifications issued under those laws. However, the Court held that if the empowering provision (Section 3 of the Act) is protected by the Ninth Schedule, the validity of orders made under it should be tested only against the criteria laid down in the Act itself, not against fundamental rights. 4. Reasonableness of the price fixation of mustard oil at Rs. 10 per kilogram: The petitioners contended that the price fixation was arbitrary and did not consider the cost of production and reasonable profit margins. The Court found that the government had taken into account various factors, including market prices, the purchasing power of consumers, and the need to control inflation. The Court noted that the price of mustard seed had decreased significantly after the Price Control Order was issued, indicating that the measure had a positive impact on controlling prices. The Court emphasized that the primary objective of price fixation under the Essential Commodities Act is to ensure the availability of essential commodities at fair prices, and the interest of consumers must be prioritized over the profit margins of producers. The Court held that the price fixation at Rs. 10 per kilogram was not patently unreasonable and was within the scope of the government's powers under Section 3 of the Act. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the Mustard Oil (Price Control) Order, 1977. The Court held that the Order was within the scope of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and served the purpose of ensuring the availability of mustard oil at fair prices. The Court found that the Order did not violate the petitioners' fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(f), and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the interest of consumers must be prioritized over the profit margins of producers and that the government has the authority to take measures to control prices in the public interest.
|
