JUDGMENT
V. Ramaswami, C.J.
1. The question involved in this case relates to the constitutional validity of the Bihar Milled Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1958, promulgated by the Government of Bihar, and of the order of the Central Government called the Milled Rice (Bihar) Price Control Order. 1958, fixing the maximum wholesale price of milled rice under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Act 10 of 1955).
2. In pursuance of Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act (Act 10 of 1955), the Central Government issued a notification No. G. S. R. 1088, dated 15-11-1958, providing that the powers conferred on the Central Government by Section 3(1) to make orders with regard to matters specified in Section 3(2) Clauses (a) to (i) shall in relation to food-stuff be also exercisable by the State Government.
In exercise of the delegated powers given by this notification the Government of Bihar promulgated on 29-12-1958 the Bihar Milled Rice Procurement (Levy) Order. 1958, which provided for a compulsory levy on milled rice produced or kept in stock with the owner of a rice mill or a licenced dealer as DEFINEd in the order. Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Order are reproduced below:
"1. Short title, extent and commencement.- (1) This Order may be called the Bihar Milled Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1958. (2) It extends to the whole of the State of Bihar. (3) It shall come into force at once. 2. Definitions -- In this Order unless the context otherwise requires, -- (a) 'controlled price' means the maximum price fixed in the Milled Rice (Bihar) Price Control Order, 1958;
(b) ‘enforcement officer’ means an officer appointed by the State Government to enforce the provisions of this Order and includes any Police Officer not below the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector, the District Magistrate and Sub-Divisional Magistrate within their respective jurisdictions;
(c) ‘licensed dealer’ means a person holding a valid licence under the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers’ Licensing Order, 1958;
(d) ‘miller’ means the owner or any other person in charge of a rice mill worked by power;
(e) ‘milled rice’ means rice recovered from paddy in it rice mill with the aid of power;
(f) ‘rice mill’ means the plant and machinery with which and the premises including the precincts thereof in which or in any part of which, rice milling operation is carried on;
(g) ‘State Government’ means the Government of the State of Bihar.
3. Levy on rice produced or in stock, (1) Every miller shall sell to the State Government at the controlled price-
(a) 50 per cent. of the quantity of milled rice held in stock by him at the commencement of this Order, and
(b) 50 per cent of the total quantity of rice produced or manufactured by him in his rice mill, every day beginning with the date of the commencement of this Order until such time as the State Government otherwise directs.
(2) Every licensed dealer shall sell to the State Government at the controlled price –
(a) 50 per cent of the quantity of milled rice held in stock by him at the commencement of this Order, and
(b) 50 per cent of the total quantity of milled rice acquired by him every day for sale or storage for sale beginning with the date of the commencement of this Order until such time as the State Government otherwise directs.
(3) The milled rice required to be sold to the
State Government under Sub-clauses (1) and (2) shall be delivered by the miller or the licensed dealer to such officer as may be authorised by the State Government to take delivery on its behalf.
(4) The State Government may, by general orders notified in the Official Gazette, vary the percentage of milled rice required to be sold to the State Government under this Order.”
On 22-12-1958, the Central Government made an order in exercise of its powers under Section 3(2)(c) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, fixing the maximum price of milled rice sold ex-mill or in wholesale quantities at Rs. 16/- per maund in any area within the State of Bihar. The order of the
Central Government is in the following terms:
"1. Short title, extent and commencement.- (1) This Order may be called the Milled Rice (Bihar) Price Control Order, 1958, (2) It extends to the whole of the State of Bihar. (3) It shall come into force at once.
2. Maximum prices at which milled-rice may be sold. (1) The maximum price at which milled-rice may be sold ex-mill or in wholesale quantities, in any area within the State of Bihar shall be Rs. 16-00 (Rupees sixteen) per maund.
(2) For the purposes of Sub-clause (1),–
(a) the price specified shall be exclusive of cost of gunny bags and shall be for delivery ex-mill or as the case may be ex-seller’s godown;
(b) a ‘maund’ is equivalent in weight to
82.2/7 lbs.;
(c) ‘sale in wholesale Quantities’ means in quantities exceeding ten maunds in any one transaction;
(d) ‘milled-rice’ means rice recovered from paddy in a rice mill with the aid of power;
(e) ‘rice mill’ means the plant and machinery with which, and the premises, including the precincts thereof, in which or any part of which, rice milling operation is carried on;
(f) the price specified is for fair average quality rice; tor rice below the fair average quality, the maximum price shall be determined by reducing the specified price by the amounts of cuts indicated in the Schedule hereto applicable to the variety of rice;
(g) ‘fair average quality rice’ means rice of that
quality in which the admixtures or impurities, if
any, do not exceed the tolerance limits specified
in the table annexed to the schedule hereto applicable to Arwa (raw) or Usna (par-boiled) variety,
as the case may be. x x x”
Acting in pursuance of the Bihar Order, respondent No. 2. the Enforcement Officer, Samastipur,
seized 1075 maunds of milled rice from the total
stock of the petitioner on 1-1-1959, and another
quantity of 187 1/2 maunds of milled rice on the
11th January, 1959. The case of the petitioner is
that he had purchased the seized stock of rice
from Maheshwari Rice Mills, Ghoghardiha, in the
district of Muzaffarpur, at varying rates between
Rs. 17/12/- per maund and Rs. 28/- per maund,
besides the cost of transport etc. at the rate of
Re. -/10/- annas per maund.
It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the provisions of the Bihar Milled Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Bihar Order, as also the provisions of the Order of the Central Government, dated 22-12-1958, called the Milled Rice (Bihar) Price Control Order, 1958, are unconstitutional and void as there is violation of the guarantee of the fundamental right to carry on trade or business under Article 19(g) of the Constitution.
It was also alleged on behalf of the petitioner that both the Bihar Order and the Central Order infringe the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 19(f) of the Constitution to acquire, hold and dispose of property. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for grant of a writ under Article 266 of the Constitution prohibiting the State of Bihar and its officers from enforcing the provisions of the Bihar Order or from taking any steps to enforce the levy of milled rice held in stock by the petitioner or produced or manufactured by him in his rice-mill.
3. Cause has been shown in this case by the Advocate General on behalf of the respondents to whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given,
4. On behalf of the petitioner Mr. P.R. Das submitted in the first place that Section 3(2)(f) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Act 10 of 1955) did not confer any authority upon the Bihar Government to require the petitioner to sell the essential commodity to the State Government or its officers. In support of this argument learned Counsel referred to the language of Section 3(2)(f) which states as follows:
“3. Powers to control production, supply, distribution, etc. of essential commodities.-
X X X (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) an order made thereunder may provide- X X X (f) for requiring any person holding in stock any essential commodity to sell the whole or a specified part of the stock to such person or class of persons and in such circumstances he may be specified in the order; X X X"
The submission of Mr. P.R. Das was that the expression “such person’ or “class of persons” in Section 3(2)(f) cannot mean the State Government and so the provisions of the Bihar Order exceed the authority conferred by Section 3(2)(f) of the Essential Commodities Act. There is no merit in the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner, because Section 3(2)(f1 of the Essential Commodities Act has been amended by the Central Act No. 28 of 1957 which came into force on 17-9-1957. Section 2 of the Amending Act states:
“2. Amendment of Section 3. — In Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), for Clause (f), the following clause shall be substituted and shall be deemed always to have been substituted, namely:-
‘(f) for requiring any person holding in stock any essential commodity to sell the whole or a specified part of the stock to the Central Government or a State Government or to an officer or agent of such Government or to such other person or class of persons and in such circumstances as may be specified in the order;”
In view of the amendment of Section 3(2)(f) made by the Amending Act, I reject the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner on this point.
5. It was then submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Bihar Order is tantamount to an unreasonable restriction on the petitioner’s right to curry on trade or business and so there is an infringement of the guarantee under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It was pointed out by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the milled rice was actually purchased at prices varying from Rs. 17/12/- to Rs. 28/- per maund and it was unreasonable that the petitioner should be compelled to sell the rice to the State Government at the rate of Rs. 16/- per maund as fixed in the Central Order dated 22-12-1958.
It was contended that any order compelling the petitioner to sell at a particular price was a restriction on the right of freedom of trade or business, and an order compelling the petitioner to sell at a loss, namely, at Rs. 16/- per maund, was an unreasonable restriction. It was submitted that the enforcement of the Bihar Order will cause a total stoppage of the petitioner’s business in a commercial sense and so the provisions of the Bihar Order must be held to be an unreasonable restriction.
It was also argued that the restrictions imposed
by the Bihar and Central Orders constituted a violation of the right of the petitioner under Article 19(1)(f) to acquire, hold and dispose of property. I do not agree with the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner that either the Bihar Order or the Central Order infringes the guarantee of freedom of property or freedom of trade or business under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Taking the Bihar Order first, I consider that the restrictions imposed are reasonable restrictions in the interest of general public within the meaning of Articles. 19(5) and 19(6) of the Constitution.
It would be noticed in the first place that the Bihar Order applies solely to the procurement of milled rice and that it does not apply to paddy or hand-pounded rice. It should also be noticed that the miller or licensed dealer is required to sell to the State Government at the controlled price only 50 per cent of the stock and not the whole of the stock. It appears from the Government Press Note annexure B, that the object of the procurement is to prevent rise in prices by unhealthy competition among traders and to have
some ready stock of rice for sale to needy consumers at a reasonable price later on in the year. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents it is further stated that the object of the Bihar Order was to prevent hoarding and undue profiteering by the traders in the rice market, and the purpose of the procurement was to make rice available to the general public for consumption at a controlled rate through fairprice shops: Taking all these matters into consideration I am of opinion that the provisions of the Bihar Order do not violate the guarantee under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution and the restrictions imposed by the Bihar Order are reasonable restrictions.
6. With regard to the Central Order of the 22nd December, 1958, fixing the maximum wholesale price of milled rice at Rs. 16/- a maund, the argument on behalf of the petitioner is that he would suffer loss if he is forced to sell the milled rice at the controlled rate, because he has already purchased it at prices varying from 17/12/- per maund to Rs. 28/- per maund. It was contended, therefore, that the provisions of the Central Order imposed unreasonable restrictions upon the right of the petitioner to carry on business and so violated the guarantee under Articles 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
I do not accept this argument as correct. No material has been furnished by the petitioner to show that the maximum price of Rs. 16/- per maund fixed by the Central Government for the sale of rice within Bihar is arbitrary. The object of price fixation as mentioned in Section 3( 1) of the Essential Commodities Act (Act 10 of 1955) is to maintain the supplies of essential commodities at a fairprice to the general public.
The fixation of one uniform controlled rate is inherent in the power to control the sale and distribution of an essential commodity, and the mere fact that in consequence of fixation of price some loss may fall upon an individual trader cannot lead to the implication that the provisions of the Central Order are constitutionally invalid. The interest of the petitioner may suffer to some extent, but the provisions of the Central Order fixing the price are enacted in the interests of the general public and those provisions cannot be struck down as miconstitutional merely because the petitioner may suffer in this particular case owing to his having purchased a quantity of rice at a higher rate.
In a somewhat similar case, Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. v. State of Aimer, 1955 SCJ 51: AIR 1955 SC 33), it was argued before the Supreme Court that the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act (Act XI of 1948) are bound to affect harshly and even oppressively a particular class of employers who for purely economic reasons are unable to pay the minimum wages fixed by the authorities but have absolutely no dishonest intention of exploiting their labourers. The argument was rejected by the Supreme Court and it was held that the restrictions imposed by the Minimum Wages Act were reasonable, and being imposed in the interest of the general public were protected by Clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution. At p. 53 of the report (SCJ): (at p. 35 of AIR) Mukherjea, states as follows:
“We could not really appreciate the argument of Mr. Seervai that the provisions of the Act are bound to affect harshly and even oppressively a particular class of employers who for purely economic reasons are unable to pay the minimum wages fixed by the authorities but have absolutely no dishonest intention of exploiting their labourers. If it is in the interest of the general public that the labourers should be secured adequate living wages, the intentions of the employers
whether good or bad are really irrelevant. Individual employers might find it difficult to carry on the business on the basis of the minimum wages fixed under the Act but this must be due entirely to the economic conditions of these particular employers. That cannot be a reason for striking down the law itself as unreasonable.”
In my opinion, the restriction imposed by the Central Order in the present case is a reasonable restriction and the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner on this point must be rejected
7. The question of reasonableness of the law in any particular case is a matter to be determined by the Court, having regard to various considerations in that case. The Court must look at the nature and extent of the restrictions, the manner in which the restrictions are imposed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions and also the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied by the law. Having regard to all these factors I am of the opinion that the provisions of the Bihar and Central Orders which are challenged in this case impose reasonable restrictions on the right of the petitioner under Articles 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and there is no violation of the guarantee of fundamental right of the petitioner,
The question of reasonableness is really one of balancing conflicting interests, of reconciling individual right and social welfare in a particular case. The right of property under Article 19(1)(f), or the right of carrying on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g), which the Constitution guarantees, are not absolute rights. The Constitution does not secure to anyone the liberty to conduct his business or dispose of his property in such a fashion as to inflict injury upon the public at large.
It is manifest that the rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g) are rights to be enjoyed in the context and setting of a social organization which requires the protection of law against evils which menace the health, safety and welfare of our people. In my opinion, the restrictions imposed by the Bihar Milled Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1958, and by the Milled Rice (Bihar) Price Control Order, 1958, are reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public, and the constitutional objection raised on behalf of the petitioner must be rejected.
8. For these reasons I hold that there is no ground made out on behalf of the petitioner for grant of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution against the respondents. In my opinion, this application fails and must be dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 200/-.
R.K. Choudhary, J.
9. I agree.