9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the State Government's order under Clause 6 of the Control Order. 2. Alleged discriminatory nature of the order. 3. Ultra vires nature of the order concerning Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the State Government's Order under Clause 6 of the Control Order: The petitioners challenged the State Government's order, arguing it was ultra vires Clause 6 of the Control Order, which authorized regulation but not prohibition of distribution. The Court examined whether the order imposed a prohibition or merely regulated distribution. It was determined that the order did not prohibit the sale of tyres but regulated distribution to ensure genuine buyers could access tyres. The Court cited the distinction between regulation and prohibition, emphasizing that regulation involves control and governance, not a ban. The impugned orders were found to be regulatory measures, not prohibitory, aligning with the powers granted under Clause 6. 2. Alleged Discriminatory Nature of the Order: The petitioners argued that the order was discriminatory, granting arbitrary discretion to the authority in issuing permits, potentially disadvantaging some dealers. The Court dismissed this argument as speculative, noting that the committee responsible for issuing permits comprised both officials and representatives from relevant associations. There was no evidence of favoritism or discrimination by the committee, which had been functioning without complaint for over a year. The Court referenced Supreme Court precedents, asserting that discretionary power does not equate to discrimination, especially when exercised by responsible officials. 3. Ultra Vires Nature of the Order Concerning Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955: The petitioners contended that the State Government's order was ultra vires Section 3 of the Act, as it lacked evidence of the necessary opinion formation regarding the order's necessity or expediency. The Court noted that this issue was not explicitly raised in the writ applications, and there was no allegation of non-compliance with Section 3(1). The Court found sufficient material indicating the State Government's jurisdiction to issue the order, citing the acknowledged scarcity of certain tyre varieties, justifying regulatory measures. The Court concluded that the State Government was justified in its actions, and the petitioners' grievances lacked substance. Conclusion: The Court dismissed both writ applications, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioners. The orders in question were deemed regulatory, non-discriminatory, and within the powers conferred by the relevant legal provisions. The Court emphasized the responsible exercise of discretion by the committee and the State Government's justified response to the scarcity of essential commodities. No order as to costs was made.
|
