1981 (8) TMI 243 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the wireless message dated October 28, 1980.
2. Validity of the amendment to the Madhya Pradesh Foodstuffs (Distribution Control) Order, 1960.
3. Requirement of concurrence from the Central Government for the amendment.
4. Necessity of laying the amendment and scheme before Parliament.
5. Violation of principles of natural justice due to the amendment.
6. Validity of the scheme made pursuant to delegation of delegated powers.
7. Alleged unlawful creation of monopoly in favor of cooperative societies.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Wireless Message Dated October 28, 1980:
The petitioners contended that the wireless message was without any legal authority as the Madhya Pradesh Foodstuffs (Distribution Control) Order, 1960, had not been amended by that date. The Court found that no action was taken pursuant to the wireless message until after the Control Order was amended. Therefore, the premature issuance of the wireless message did not result in any harm.

2. Validity of the Amendment to the Madhya Pradesh Foodstuffs (Distribution Control) Order, 1960:
The amendment made on October 30, 1980, abolished the system of 'appointed retailers' and replaced it with 'fair price shops' run by agents appointed under the new scheme, with preference given to cooperative societies. The Court found that the amendment was valid and necessary to address the serious irregularities and abuses in the existing system of distribution.

3. Requirement of Concurrence from the Central Government for the Amendment:
The Court held that the concurrence of the Central Government was unnecessary for the amendment as the Control Order and its amendment did not relate to matters specified in Clause (a), (c), and (f) of Section 3(2) of the Essential Commodities Act. The notification in force at the time, GSR 800 dated June 9, 1978, did not require such concurrence for the matters covered by the amendment.

4. Necessity of Laying the Amendment and Scheme Before Parliament:
The Court clarified that the amendment was not an Ordinance and was not required to be placed before the Legislature within six months. Furthermore, only orders made by the Central Government or its officers under Section 3, Sub-section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act, needed to be laid before Parliament. The State Government's order, made under delegated powers, did not require such placement.

5. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice Due to the Amendment:
The petitioners argued that the amendment took away the rights of existing 'appointed retailers' without hearing them, violating principles of natural justice. The Court held that the amendment was a legislative function, and there was no requirement to afford an opportunity to those affected by it, citing the precedent in International Tourist Corporation Delhi and Ors. v. The State of Haryana and Ors.

6. Validity of the Scheme Made Pursuant to Delegation of Delegated Powers:
The petitioners argued that the scheme was invalid as it was made pursuant to the delegation of delegated powers. The Court found that the Madhya Pradesh Foodstuffs (Civil Supply Distribution) Scheme, 1981, was formulated in exercise of the State Government's executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution, and not under any power delegated by a delegate under the Essential Commodities Act. Therefore, the scheme was valid.

7. Alleged Unlawful Creation of Monopoly in Favor of Cooperative Societies:
The petitioners argued that the scheme was discriminatory as it gave preference to cooperative societies, creating a monopoly. The Court found that the preference to cooperative societies was a reasonable classification with a nexus to the objective of ensuring a fair and assured supply of rations to consumers. The fundamental right of traders to carry on business was not affected as they could still trade in foodstuffs, but not as agents of the Government running fair price shops. The Court distinguished this case from Mannalal Jain v. State of Assam, where the issue was the discriminatory administration of a licensing authority's order, not the validity of the order itself.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the Writ Petitions and Special Leave Petitions, upholding the validity of the wireless message, the amendment to the Madhya Pradesh Foodstuffs (Distribution Control) Order, 1960, and the Madhya Pradesh Foodstuffs (Civil Supply Distribution) Scheme, 1981. The Court found no substance in the petitioners' submissions regarding the necessity of Central Government concurrence, the requirement to lay the amendment before Parliament, the violation of natural justice principles, the delegation of delegated powers, and the alleged creation of a monopoly in favor of cooperative societies.