TMI Blog1987 (10) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rioration when the consumers refused to accept it. We have no reason to doubt the explanation given by the State Government. - Writ Petition No. 7993 of 1982 - - - Dated:- 26-10-1987 - RAY B.C. AND JAGANNATHA SHETTY K. JJ. Prithiviraj, Seniior Advocate (Mrs. Shobha Dixit, Advocate, with him), for respondents Nos. 1 and 3 to 5. R.K. Jain, Senior Advocate (R.P. Singh, Advocate, with him), for the petitioner. Kuldip Singh, Additional Solicitor-General (C.V. Subba Rao and B. Parthasarathy, Advocates, with him), for respondent No. 2. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the Court was delivered by K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. -This is a petition under article 32 of the Constitutio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xation is neither the function nor the forte of the court. We concern ourselves neither with the policy nor with the rates. But we do not totally deny ourselves the jurisdiction to enquire into the question, in appropriate proceedings, whether relevant considerations have gone in and irrelevant considerations kept out of the determination of the price. For example, if the legislature has decreed the pricing policy and prescribed the factors which should guide the determination of the price, we will, if necessary, enquire into the question whether the policy and the factors are present to the mind of the authorities specifying the price. But our examination will stop there. We will go no further. We will not deluge ourselves with more facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The policy of price control has for its dominant object equitable distribution and availability of the commodity at fair price so as to benefit the consumers. It is manifest that individual interest, however, precious they may be must yield to the larger interest of the community, viz., in the instant case, the large body of the consumers of sugar. In fact, even if the petitioners have to bear some loss there can be no question of the restrictions imposed on the petitioners being unreasonable. In Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Union of India [1974] 2 SCR 398 this Court observed as follows; 'If fair price is to be fixed leaving a reasonable margin of profit, there is never any question of infringement of fundamental right to carry on busi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to producers. That according to him the law laid down by this Court in Panipat Co-operative Sugar Mills v. Union of India [1973] 2 SCR 860 and Anakapalle Co-op. Agrl. Industrial Society Ltd. v. Union of India [1973] 2 SCR 882. Since these two decisions have not been referred to in the New India Sugar Works case [1981] 3 SCR 29 we should refer this case to a larger Bench for decision. We do not think that the counsel is justified in his submission. We do not find any diversity of views taken in the aforesaid cases. All those cases were concerned with the price fixation of the essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act. The primary object of the Act was to control the production, supply and distribution of essential commoditi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e liberty reserved to manufacturers to sell freely 50 per cent of the sugar manufactured and also 100 per cent of the produce by 2nd and 3rd processes. This Court was of opinion that by such a free sale the industry could get reasonable return. We agree with this conclusion and see no reason for reconsideration. As to the grievance of the petitioner that the State has made profit by the sale of khandsari sugar at public auction, we perused the counteraffidavit of the State. We do not find any colourable exercise of the power. There was every justification for the sale by public auction. It has been stated that the petitioner and some other producers delivered inferior quality of khandsari. That was found to be unacceptable to consumers at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
