TMI Blog1990 (9) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act, 1973 ) on the ground that the said amendment had not re- ceived the previous sanction of the President of India in terms of Article 304(b) of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellants were not shown to have been aggrieved by the impugned amendment. The Amendment Act. 1973 amended the provisions of the East Punjab Molasses (Control) Act. 1948 (East Punjab Act No. 11 of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act ). as it stood at the relevant time. The Principal Act had been earlier amended in 1950. 1957. 1964 and 1968. It was subsequently amended in 1976. The appellants have. however. challenged only the Amendment Act, 1973 and have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Clause (f) of Section 2 was added to define a 'khandsari unit'. Section 3 of the Principal 'Act empowered the Controller to direct the owner or occupier of a sugar factory or any other person to furnish returns of the stock of molasses in his possession. This Section was amended in 1973 to bring a khandsari unit or distillery within the statutory ambit. Section 3(A) had been added in 1964. to empower the Control- ler to direct the owner or occupier of a sugar factory or distillery, or any other person permitted to store and preserve molasses, to construct tanks for the storage of molasses. This Section was amended in 1973 to bring a khand- sari unit within its ambit. Section 4 of the Principal Act says that no person sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o provide for the exercise of supervision and control by the Control- ler over sugar factories through subordinates. It was amend- ed in 1973 by including a khandsari unit within its ambit. Section 9 of the Principal Act provided for power of entry and seizure. It was substituted in 1973 by a new section with certain changes which are immaterial. Section 10 of the Principal Act provided for the procedure of seizure. It was substituted by a new section in 1973, but the changes are not material. Section 11 deals with the delegation of pow- ers. It has not undergone any change. Section 12 of the Principal Act deals with the power of the Govern- ment to exempt any area or person from the provisions of the Act. This Section was amended in 197 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the amendment provi- sion specifically refers to khandsari sugar, apart from sugar, while the unamended section 2(c) referred only to sugar. Section 2(f), as introduced by the Amendment Act, 1973 defines 'khandsari unit' as follows: 2(f) 'khandsari unit' means any premises, including the land, godowns or out-houses appurtenant thereto, wherein, or in any part of which a manufacturing process con- nected with the production of khandsari sugar from sugar- cane or gur in open pans is carried on with or without the aid of power. The 'occupier of a khandsari unit' is defined as a person who has control over the affairs of a khandsari unit . The definition of sugar factory' has not undergone any change, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants from trad- ing. They directly affect the freedom of trade and commerce. They are not merely regulatory for the purpose of facilitat- ing the free flow of trade and commerce. They are restric- tions hampering trade. They may be justifiable as reasonable restrictions, but being restrictions unsupported by previous sanction of the President, they are nevertheless invalid. Mr. C.M. Nayar, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand. contends that the impugned provisions of the Amendment Act, 1973 are regulatory measures enacted to facilitate trade and they do not come within the ban of the proviso to clause (b) of Article 304. These provisions do not require the previous sanction of the President in terms of the proviso to A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellants' business to a greater extent or is it merely clarificatory in so far as. at any rate. the appellants are concerned? The point then really is. has the amendment made the Act more stringent in so for as the appellants are concerned? If the answer is negative. as the High Court has held. the appellants are not aggrieved. and cannot therefore. success- fully challenge the Amendment Act. Referring to the principle of contemporanea exposition. Mr. Sanghi says that the Act. as it stood before the amend- ment. was not understood to apply to khandsari unit. and consequently to the business of the appellants. and it became applicable only as a result of the amendment. We do not agree that this submission is right. The High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
