1954 (11) TMI 58 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of proceedings under Travancore-Cochin Food Grains Control Order 1950.
2. Constitutionality of Travancore-Cochin Public Safety Measures Act, 1950.
3. Interpretation of Art. 304 of the Constitution regarding Presidential sanction for Bills.

Analysis:
1. The judgment concerns the legality of proceedings under the Travancore-Cochin Food Grains Control Order 1950, enacted under the Travancore-Cochin Public Safety Measures Act, 1950. The Act was challenged as 'ultra vires' of the Constitution due to lack of Presidential sanction, as held in previous cases like 'Lonappen George v. State' and 'State v. Philipose Philip'. The Court noted that compliance with Art. 304 of the Constitution, requiring Presidential sanction for trade restrictions, was crucial for the validity of such laws.

2. The central issue revolved around the interpretation of Art. 304, which empowers States to impose trade restrictions in the public interest with prior Presidential sanction. The Court deliberated on the significance of the phrase "introduced or moved" in the proviso of Art. 304. The State contended that since the Bill was introduced before the Constitution came into force, no Presidential sanction was necessary. However, the Court rejected this argument to prevent circumvention of the Presidential sanction requirement.

3. The Court analyzed the legislative intent behind Art. 304 to ensure the fullest effect of the Constitution's provisions. It emphasized that the prior Presidential sanction was essential for both introducing a Bill and moving an amendment. By invoking the maxim 'Reddendo singula singulis' and interpreting the phraseology of the Constitution, the Court concluded that the previous decisions holding the Act 'ultra vires' were valid. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and upheld the necessity of Presidential sanction for Bills affecting trade restrictions.

4. In the final decision, the Court allowed the petition challenging the legality of the proceedings under the Travancore-Cochin Food Grains Control Order 1950. Despite the ruling in favor of the petitioner, no costs were awarded in the circumstances of the case. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of adhering to constitutional provisions, particularly regarding the imposition of trade restrictions and the requirement of Presidential sanction for legislative measures impacting public interest.