9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Seizure of wheat in transit and its legality under Art. 301 and Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 2. Validity of the Notification No. P-XXIX-Food-5-5(42)/80 dated April 21, 1981, under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 3. Restrictions on movement of wheat by traders on private accounts from Uttar Pradesh to other states and within Uttar Pradesh. 4. Allegations of wrongful seizure and deprivation of property without authority of law under Art. 300A of the Constitution. 5. Reasonableness and arbitrariness of the stock limits imposed on wholesale dealers and commission agents in Uttar Pradesh. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Seizure of Wheat in Transit and its Legality under Art. 301 and Art. 19(1)(g): The Court examined whether the action of the Uttar Pradesh government in setting up check-posts and seizing wheat in transit was in violation of Art. 301 and Art. 19(1)(g). The Court held that the impugned tele printer message dated March 31, 1981, was an executive instruction for compliance with the two Control Orders and did not constitute a restriction on the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse. The Court emphasized that regulatory measures, such as setting up check-posts and requiring endorsements by Deputy Marketing Officers, were reasonable and necessary to prevent hoarding and ensure equitable distribution of wheat. The Court concluded that these measures were not arbitrary or excessive and were in the public interest. 2. Validity of Notification No. P-XXIX-Food-5-5(42)/80 Dated April 21, 1981: The Court addressed the petitioners' challenge to the notification issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which amended the Uttar Pradesh Food grains (Procurement and Regulation of Trade) Order, 1978, by fixing stock limits for wholesale dealers, commission agents, and retailers. The Court upheld the notification, stating that the restriction on stock limits was a reasonable measure to curb speculative tendencies and ensure the availability of wheat at fair prices. The Court found that the stock limit of 250 quintals for wholesale dealers was not arbitrary or excessive and was necessary to prevent hoarding and black-marketing. 3. Restrictions on Movement of Wheat by Traders: The Court examined the restrictions imposed by the impugned tele printer message on the movement of wheat by traders. The Court held that the requirement for endorsements by Deputy Marketing Officers and physical verification at check-posts were regulatory measures to prevent the outflow of wheat and ensure its availability within the state. The Court found these measures to be reasonable and necessary to achieve the objectives of the Essential Commodities Act and did not constitute a violation of the fundamental right to carry on trade or business or the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse. 4. Allegations of Wrongful Seizure and Deprivation of Property without Authority of Law: The Court addressed the petitioners' claim that the seizure of wheat amounted to deprivation of property without authority of law under Art. 300A. The Court emphasized that the State Government could not deprive a person of property without the authority of law and that such power could only be exercised by a positive law. The Court noted that the seizure was for the purpose of confiscation under s. 6A of the Essential Commodities Act and that the petitioners were entitled to the sale proceeds if it was ultimately found that there was no contravention of an order issued under s. 3 of the Act. The Court concluded that the matter of wrongful seizure was a factual issue to be determined by the Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supplies), Agra. 5. Reasonableness and Arbitrariness of Stock Limits: The Court addressed the petitioners' contention that the stock limits imposed by the notification were arbitrary and violated Art. 14 and Art. 19(1)(g). The Court found that the fixation of stock limits was a reasonable measure to prevent hoarding and ensure equitable distribution of wheat. The Court held that the stock limit of 250 quintals for wholesale dealers was not arbitrary or excessive and was necessary to achieve the objectives of the Essential Commodities Act. The Court also noted that the stock limits were designed to prevent speculative tendencies and ensure the availability of wheat at fair prices. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the measures taken by the State Government were reasonable and necessary to prevent hoarding and ensure equitable distribution of wheat. The Court found that the restrictions imposed by the impugned tele printer message and the notification were not arbitrary or excessive and did not violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(g) and Art. 301. The Court emphasized that the matter of wrongful seizure was a factual issue to be determined by the Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supplies), Agra, and that the petitioners were entitled to the sale proceeds if no contravention of the Essential Commodities Act was found.
|
