1995 (10) TMI 240 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the State Legislature to enact U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam 1964.
2. Legislative developments concerning the control of molasses.
3. Interpretation of relevant constitutional entries and their interrelationship.
4. Application of the doctrine of "occupied field" and federal supremacy.
5. Validity of the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam 1964 in light of Section 18G of the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence of the State Legislature to Enact U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam 1964:
The primary issue was whether the State Legislature was competent to legislate on the regulation of molasses, a product of the sugar industry, under Sections 7, 8, and 10 of the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam 1964, in light of Section 18G of the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. The Court concluded that the State Legislature retained the power to legislate on this matter under Entry 33 of List III of the Seventh Schedule, as Section 18G of the IDR Act is referable to this entry, making it a concurrent subject.

2. Legislative Developments Concerning the Control of Molasses:
The Court traced the history of legislation related to the control of molasses in Uttar Pradesh. Initially, the U.P. Molasses Act 1947 regulated the supply and pricing of molasses. This was repealed and replaced by the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam 1964. The Molasses Control Order 1961, issued under Section 18G of the IDR Act, was never applied to U.P., and control continued under the Adhiniyam until its rescindment in 1993.

3. Interpretation of Relevant Constitutional Entries and Their Interrelationship:
The Court examined the relevant entries in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Entry 52 of List I pertains to industries controlled by the Union, while Entry 33 of List III covers trade, commerce, and production, supply, and distribution of products of controlled industries. The Court emphasized that the subject matter of trade, commerce, and production, supply, and distribution of controlled industries falls under Entry 33 of List III, not Entry 52 of List I.

4. Application of the Doctrine of "Occupied Field" and Federal Supremacy:
The Court addressed the argument that the field became occupied by Parliament upon enacting Section 18G of the IDR Act. It was held that the doctrine of "occupied field" and federal supremacy applies only when there is an irreconcilable conflict between Union and State legislation. Since Section 18G is a concurrent subject, the U.P. Legislature's enactment of the Adhiniyam was valid, subject to the President's assent as per Article 254 of the Constitution.

5. Validity of the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam 1964 in Light of Section 18G of the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951:
The Court concluded that Section 18G of the IDR Act does not denude the State Legislature's power to legislate on the regulation of molasses. The Adhiniyam, being a concurrent legislation, is valid with the President's assent, as required under Article 254. The Court upheld the validity of Sections 7, 8, and 10 of the Adhiniyam.

Conclusion:
The Full Bench answered the referred question in the negative, holding that the State Legislature was competent to enact the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam 1964. The judgment emphasized the concurrent nature of the legislative field concerning the regulation of molasses and upheld the validity of the Adhiniyam, subject to the President's assent. The decision reaffirmed the principles of federalism and the proper interpretation of constitutional entries.