2002 (2) TMI 1334 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the order dated 26th July 2000.
2. Conflict between Central and State Orders.
3. Legislative and executive powers of the State Government.
4. Requirement of Central Government's concurrence.

Summary:

1. Constitutional validity of the order dated 26th July 2000:
The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of the order dated 26th July 2000, which amended an earlier order by substituting the storage limits for edible Oilseeds and edible oils. The appellants contended that the State Government's inaction in not deleting "Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils" from the State Order of 1981, despite the Central Government's deletion of these items from the Central Order of 1977, was impermissible.

2. Conflict between Central and State Orders:
The appellants argued that the State Order of 1981 retaining "Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils" was repugnant to the Central Order of 1977, from which these items were removed. They contended that in cases of repugnancy, the Central Law should prevail. However, the Court held that there was no conflict or repugnancy as the Central Order ceased to govern the field regarding "Edible Oilseeds and Edible Oils" after their deletion, and only the State Order of 1981 remained operative.

3. Legislative and executive powers of the State Government:
The Court noted that both the Central and State Governments had issued orders under Section 3(1) of the Essential Commodities Act. The State Government had the legislative power to make laws concurrently with the Parliament in respect of foodstuffs, Edible Oilseeds, and Edible Oils under Entry 33 of the Concurrent List. Additionally, the State Government had the executive power to issue directions under Clause 24 of the State Order of 1981.

4. Requirement of Central Government's concurrence:
The Court found that the State Order of 1981 was issued with the prior concurrence of the Central Government. The directions issued under Clause 24 of the State Order of 1981 did not require further concurrence. The Central Government had concurred with the State Government's issuance of directions for stock limits, as evidenced by communications between the State and Central Ministers.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the State Government had the legislative and executive authority to issue the impugned order dated 26th July 2000, and there was no repugnancy between the Central and State Orders. The directions issued under the State Order of 1981 were valid and in accordance with the powers conferred under the Essential Commodities Act.