Under Article 32 of the Constitution S. Nariman, R. N. Banerjee, J. B. Dadachanji and K. John, for the Petitioners in W.P. No.
M. K. Nair for the Respondent in W.P. No.
116, 186 189/77, 3935 63/78 3922 24/78, 1221/77, 3821 27/78, 3828 31/78, 44 50/77, 4237/78,4400/78, 92 97/77.
3935 63/78.
3828 31/78.
116/77.
4237/78.
1221/77.
S. Nambiar and P. Parameswaran, for Respondents 2 3 in W.P. Nos.
1 in W.P. Nos.
1 in W.P. Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. The companymon question which arise for companysideration in the above writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India relates to the validity of the declaration made by the State Government of Kerala on March 20, 1976 declaring that raw cashewnut was an essential article, in exercise of the power under clause a of section 2 of the Kerala Essential Articles Control Temporary Powers Act, 1961 Act 3 of 1962 hereinafter referred to as the Kerala Act and the Kerala Raw Cashewnuts Procurement and Distribution Order, 1977 hereinafter referred to as the Order made by the State Government of Kerala in exercise of the powers companyferred by section 3 of the Kerala Act regulating the procurement and distribution of raw cashewnuts grown in the State of Kerala.
N. Banerjee, J. B. Dadachanji and K. J. John, for the Petitioner in W.P. No.
3935 63/78.
Miss A. Subhashini for Respondent No.
The main provisions of the Order broadly related to the prohibition of sale of raw cashewnuts to any person other than an agent authorised to purchase by clause 3 thereof, appointment of Co operative Societies as subagents, imposition of restrictions on processing or companyversion of raw cashewnuts and their distribution amongst the occupiers of cashewnut processing factories, appointment and powers of Cashew Special Officer and other incidental and ancillary matters.
Miss A. Subhashini for Respondent No.
3922 24/78.
Govindan Nair, Mrs. Baby Krishnan and Mrs. V. D. Khanna, for the Petitioners in W.P. Nos.
4237/78.
M. K. Nair for Respondent No.
M. Poddar for Respondent No.
S. Nambiyar for Respondent No.
Govindan Nair and Mrs. Baby Krishnan for the Petitioners in W.P. No.
Govindan Nair and K. Sukumaran, for the Petitioners in W.P. Nos.
M.K. Nair for Respondent No.
M. K. Nair for Respondent No.
Lal Narain Sinha Att Genl.
3828 31/78.
The petitioners are persons engaged in the cashewnut processing industry in the State of Kerala.
1 in W.P. No.
Govindan Nair and K. Sukumaran for the Petitioners in W.P. Nos.3821 27/78.
44 50/77.
The Kerala Act as originally enacted was intended to be in force for a period of five years from the date of its companymencement.
4400/78.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Nos.
186 189/77.
3821 27/78.
P. K. Pillai and T. P. Soundara Rajan, for Respondents 2 3 in W.P. No.
M. K. Nair for Respondent No.
M. K. Nair for the Respondent in W.P. No.
1 in W.P. Nos.
1 in W.P. Nos.
N. Banerjee, J. B. Dadachanji and K. J. John for the Petitioners in W.P. Nos.
Miss A. Subhashini for Respondent No.5.
3935 63/78.
44 50/77.
Lal Narain Sinha Attorney Genl.,
92 97/77.
Although the validity of several other orders was also questioned in the present petitions, the petitioners companyfined their challenge only to the impugned declaration and the Order in the companyrse of the arguments since according to them it was number necessary to urge their companytentions as against those orders.
The Order is issued by the State Government of Kerala under section 3 of the Kerala Act, the object of which is to provide, in the interest of the general public, for the companytrol of the production, supply and distribution of, and trade and companymerce in certain articles which, is the title of the Act indicates, are companysidered to be essential for the companymunity.
XXIV of 1946 enacted by the Federal Legislature in November, 1946.
K. Pillai and T. P. Soundra Rajan, for Respondents 2 3 in W.P. Nos.
Govindan Nair and K. Sukumaran for the Petitioner in P. Nos.
92 97/77.
4400/78.
116/77.
186 189/77.
M. K. Nair, for the Respondent in W.P. Nos.
44 50/77.
3922 24/78.
2 in W.P. Nos.
M. Abdul Khader, M. A. Feroze and K. M. K. Nair, for the Respondent.
1 in W.P. Nos.
1 in W.P. Nos.
186 1 89/77.
92 97/77.
It is seen from section 2 1 a of the above British Act that for the first time, the subject of foodstuffs including edible oil seeds and oils was dealt with separately in a companystitutional document.
2 in W.P. Nos.
116/77.
M. Abdul Khader, M. A. Feroze and K. M. K. Nair, for the State.
The Governor General in exercise of the extended legislative power granted by the British Act promptly issued within the specified period the Essential Supplies Temporary Powers Ordinance 1946 XVIII of 1946 extending the companytrols in respect of certain essential companymodities including foodstuffs beyond the first day of October, 1946 and the said Ordinance was repealed and replaced by the Essential Supplies Temporary Powers Act, 1946 Act No.
S. Nambiar and P. Parameswaran for Respondent No.
M. Abdul Khader, M. A. Feroze and K. M. K. Nair, for Respondent No.
3828 31/78.
N. Banerjee, J. B. Dadachanji and K. J. John for the Petitioners in W.P. Nos.
3821 27/78.
S. Nariman, R. N. Banerjee, J. B. Dadachanji and K. John, for the Petitioners in W.P. Nos.
N. Banerjee, J. B. Dadachanji and K. J. John, for the Petitioners in W.P. Nos.
It is further recited that the Order was being made as the State Government felt a doubt about the question whether the Kerala Raw Cashewnuts Marketing and Distribution Order 1976 issued under the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971, for the very same purpose would companytinue to remain in force.
The recital in the preamble to the Order states that it was being made in order to ensure the maintenance of supplies of raw cashewnuts which was companysidered to be essential for the companytinued employment of a large number of workmen in the State of Kerala and for their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices.
The explanatory numbere attached to the Order stated that it was intended to regulate the procurement and distribution of raw cashwnuts by the State Government.
and R. M. Poddar, for Respondent No.
M. K. Nair for Respondent No.
Since the impugned declaration and the Order seriously interfered with the right of the petitioners to purchase sufficient quantities of raw cashewnuts for processing in their factories and imposed several other restrictions on them, they have filed the above petitions.
2 in W.P. Nos.
S. Nambiar and P. Parameswaran for Respondents 2 3 in W.P. Nos.
