9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of sub-clause (e) of clause 5 of the Assam Foodgrains (Licensing and Control) Order, 1961. 2. Whether the licensing authority's refusal to grant a license to the petitioner and preference to cooperative societies violated Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of sub-clause (e) of clause 5 of the Assam Foodgrains (Licensing and Control) Order, 1961: The petitioner contended that sub-clause (e) of clause 5 of the Control Order, 1961, which allows the licensing authority to consider whether the applicant is a cooperative society, is ultra vires as it goes beyond the powers granted under Section 3 read with Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The respondents argued that sub-clause (e) is within the powers granted and does not create a monopoly in favor of cooperative societies. The Court held that sub-clause (e) does not provide for a monopoly but enables the licensing authority to prefer cooperative societies in certain circumstances. The Court found that cooperative societies could have better facilities for procuring foodgrains and ensuring scheduled prices to farmers, thus aligning with the objectives of maintaining or increasing supplies and securing equitable distribution at fair prices. Therefore, sub-clause (e) was deemed to have a reasonable relation to the objects of the Essential Commodities Act and was not ultra vires. 2. Whether the licensing authority's refusal to grant a license to the petitioner and preference to cooperative societies violated Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution: The petitioner argued that the licensing authority acted on the instructions of the State Government to create a monopoly in favor of cooperative societies, thereby violating his rights under Articles 14 and 19. The respondents contended that no monopoly was created and that the licensing authority's decision was based on relevant considerations under the Control Order, 1961. The Court observed that the licensing authority repeatedly refused the petitioner's license application to grant a monopoly to cooperative societies, which was not justified by sub-clause (e) of clause 5. The Court held that the licensing authority's actions were a "colourable exercise of power" and violated the petitioner's rights under Articles 14 and 19. Consequently, the Court quashed the order dated April 11, 1961, rejecting the petitioner's application and the license granted to the Assam Co-operative Apex Marketing Society Ltd. The licensing authority was directed to reconsider the petitioner's application on merits in accordance with the provisions of the Control Order, 1961. Separate Judgment by Sarkar J.: Sarkar J. dissented, arguing that the preference given to cooperative societies under clause 5(e) was reasonable and did not create a monopoly. He emphasized that the licensing authority's decision was in the public interest to ensure the supply of foodgrains at fair prices and that the Order was valid under the Essential Commodities Act. He found no evidence that the licensing authority acted on government instructions for 1961 and believed the decision did not violate Articles 14 and 19. Conclusion: The majority opinion allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order and the license granted to the cooperative society, directing the licensing authority to reconsider the applications on merits. The dissenting opinion by Sarkar J. upheld the licensing authority's decision, finding it reasonable and in public interest.
|
