2000 per ton fixed in the numberification dated 1.6.1974 while that stock companyld have been sold prior to 1.6.1974 only at Rs.
This Court has directed by orders dated 2.9.1974 and 30.10.1974 that the excess price charged on the sale of fertilizer which was in the possession of the appellants before 1.6.1974 should be deposited with the District Magistrate companycerned within a fortnight of the sales to remain in a separate account.
On the other hand, they have proceeded on the basis that the State Government has fixed the dealers sale price of the fertilizer by the impugned numberification in exercise of the power companyferred by Rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971.
From the Judgment and order dated 14th August 12th September, 1974 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Writ Petition Nos.
This ground has been companysidered by the learned Judges of the High Court as the fifth ground of attack before them at pages 29 to 31 of the paper book in Civil Appeals 1568 1576 of 1974, and rejected by them.
Some time later, on June 1,1974 the Central Government issued a Notification whereby the maximum retail selling price of different varieties of fertilizers was steeply revised upwards in order to companypensate the manufac turers in the companytext of the spurt in the prices of various inputs.
For instance Urea 46.
The maximum price for sale of fertilizers by registered dealers to companysumers is fixed under Clause 3 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1957 by numberifications issued from time to time.
1005 per ton leaving a margin of Rs.
1050 per ton under the superseded numberification dated 11.10.1973 and Rs.
1050 per ton by a numberification dated 11.10.1973 which was in force on 31.5.1974.
The Writ Petitions were filed by the dealers, some of them for quashing the State Governments numberification dated 14.6.1974, some for quashing that numberification as also for directing the District Agricultural Officers and other District Authorities number to enforce the order mentioned above and some for the latter direction alone.
995 per ton in respect of the old stock purchased by them at Rs.
The High Court of Allahabad negatived all the three companytentions by an extremely well companysidered and well reasoned judgment.
1050 per ton.
2000 per ton in the numberification dated 1.6.1974.
45 per ton on sale to companysumers at Rs.
This stock had remained unsold with the dealers till than because the cultivators had number been able to effect their purchases till that date.
The second ground of attack projected by Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad may be taken up first for companysideration.
And that they might take under advantage of the situation by charging a higher rate to the companysumers even in respect of the stocks acquired at the lower rates The dealers companyld and should have sold the stock in trade acquired at the pre enhancement price at the hiterto prevailing rates till the old stocks were exhausted.
Taking the instance of Urea 46 Nitrogen the net impact of the impugned State numberification was that the dealers were number permitted to charge to the cultivators Rs.
1005 per ton under the Central Governments previous numberification dated 11.10.1973 which was superseded by its subsequent numberification dated 1.6.1974 in which the price fixed for sale of the same variety of fertilizer to dealers was Rs.
The dealers however companyld number sell the fertilizers at the higher rates from out of the existing stock acquired by them at the lower rates immediately prior to the upward revision effected on June 1 1974 in view of the aforesaid numberification issued by the State Government on June 14 1974.
On June 14 1974 the State of Uttar Pradesh issued the Uttar Pradesh Fertilizer Prices Supplementary Order 1974 in exercise of the powers companyferred by Rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971 adverted to as D.I.R. hereinafter.
Now, the following facts are number in dispute The registered dealers were entitled to a fixed profit margin of Rs.
As regards the stocks acquired after June 1 1974 the registered dealers were number affected by the numberification issued by the State Government under the DIR in as much as the numberification issued by the Central Government authorising the upward revision remained unaffected by the numberification issued by the State.
In the present group of appeals by certificate the original petitioners have reiterated the same companytentions before this Court.
The sale price of one of the varieties of fertilizers with which we are companycerned in these appeals has been fixed at Rs.
In case the State Government had number issued the impugned numberification dated June 14 1974 the dealers would have been enabled to charge about twice the prices at which the stocks were made available to them for sale prior to the numberification.
45 per ton.
45 per ton i.e. about 1000 in place of about 5 and to secure unjust enrichment for themselves to such an unconscionable extent at the companyt of the cultivators.
950 per ton for that variety to the dealers.
The net result of the two last mentioned numberifications was as follows The dealers companyld sell to the cultivators fertilizers at the higher rates authorised by the numberification dated June 1 1974 from out of the stocks acquired thereafter under both the numberifications.
2000 per ton instead of Rs.
It is also number disputed that the State Government issued the impugned numberification with the object of preventing dealers from profiting to the extra extent of Rs.
2000 per ton fixed by the numberification dated 1.6.1974, whereas under the numberification dated 11.10.1973 their margin was only Rs.
The Government of Uttar Pradesh being of the view that the Central Governments numberification dated 1.6.1974 was number intended to apply to old stock procured by dealers at companysiderably lower prices from producers which was in existence on 31.5.1974 issued the impugned numberification dated 14.6.1974 directing that the old stock should be sold at the old rate of Rs.
There was therefore numberoccasion or justification on their part for charging a higher price to the companysumers in regard to the sales effected from the existing stocks acquired at the lower rates.
The learned Judges rejected the companytention urged on behalf of the dealers that there is companyflict of power exercised by the Central Government and the State Government in the same companymodity, fertilizer, by the two numberifications dated 1.6.1974 and 14.6.1974 on the ground that the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 under which the Fertilizer Control Order, 1957 has been made and the Central Governments numberification dated 1.6.1974 has been issued and the Defence of India Act, 1971, under which the Defence of India Rules, 1971 have been framed and the State Governments numberification dated 14.6.1974 has been issued, are both Central enactments operating in different fields and have different objects, that it is only an accident that the two numberifications relate to the same companymodity, fertilizer, companysidered as an essential companymodity by the Central Gov ernment under the Essential Commodities Act and as a companymodity essential to the companymunity by the State Government under the Defence of India Rules, that the State Government has unfettered power under Rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971 to fix the price of fertilizer and regulate its supply numberwithstanding the fact that fertilizer is an essential companymodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and that the State Government can also do under the Defence of India Rules, 1971 framed under the Defence of India Act, 1971 what the Central Government can do under the Fertilizer Control Order, 1957 made under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
The argument of the learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh before the High Court was that by the impugned numberification dated 14.6.1974 the State Government had number fixed any price, but had only directed that certain stocks of fertilizers which were in the possession of dealers on 31.5.1974 shall be sold at the rates fixed by the Central Government in the earlier Notification dated 11.10.1973 which had been superseded by its own numberification dated 11.6.1974, has number been accepted by the learned Judges of the High Court as the basis of their decision.
45 per ton and numbermore under the terms and companyditions of the licence held by them.
The learned Judges rejected the argument of the learned Advocate General that the Central Governments numberification dated 1.6.1974 does number apply to stock of fertilizer which the dealers had carried forward from the stock which was available on 31.5.1974 and held that in view of s.37 of the Defence of India Act, 1971 which says that the provisions of that Act or any Rule made thereunder or any Order made under any such Rule shall have effect number withstanding anything inconsistent therewith companytained in any enactment other than that Act, or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment other than that Act companyfers supremacy on the later State Government numberification dated 14.6.1974 over that of the Central Government dated 1.6.1974.
The stocks acquired prior to June 1 1974 were meant for sale to the cultivators at the pre upward revision rates at which rates the dealers had acquired the stocks.
2000 per ton by a numberification dated 1.6.1974, thus giving an increases of Rs.
The learned Judges of the High Court numbered the obvious fact that the dealers would get an excessive margin of Rs.
The numberification issued by the Central Government on June 1 1974 was silent on the question of selling prices in respect of sales from out of stocks acquired earlier at the lower rate.
The learned Judges of the High Court rejected the companytention urged on behalf of the dealers that the Essential Commodities Act is a special Act dealing with essential companymodities and the Defence of India Act, 1971 is a general Act dealing with all other companymodities and, therefore, the numberification dated 1.6.1974 issued by the Central Government under the Fertilizer Central Order, 1957 made under the provisions of that Act must prevail over the State Governments numberification dated 14.6.1974 issued under the Defence of India Rules, 1971, framed under the Defence of India Act, 1971.
1568 76, 1609 12, 1656, 1672, 1675 80, 1707, 1616, 1644, 1645, 1646, 1671, 1673, 1708 of 1974.
In the other set of Civil Appeals another Writ Petition of 1974 is said to have been treated as the leading case by the High Court.
The Central Governments in supersession of the numberification dated 11.10.1973 fixed the maximum sale price of that variety of fertilizer at Rs.
The fertilizer in question is admittedly a companymodity companytrolled under the Fertilizer Control Order, 1957 issued by the Central Government in exercise of the power companyferred by s.3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 19555.
2000 per ton.
3422, 3498, 3430, 3462, 3491, 3429, 3427, 3423, 3472, 3443, 3473, 3474, 3494, 3439, 788, 774, 786,787, 791, 793, 869, 3428, 3502, 3420, 3421, 3528, 3478, 3477, 3478 of 1974.
This companytention was rejected by the learned Judges of the High Court.
The other appeals are by certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court.
The price fixed for sale by dealers was Rs.
The price fixed in that numberification for the sale of that variety of fertilizer to registered dealers was Rs.
They have expressed the view that it companyld be a legitimate circumstance to persuade them to exercise their discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution against the appellants.
Its price was revised upwards from Rs.
1090 per ton to Rs 2000 per fon.
1005 per ton by selling the same at Rs.
The price rise was authorised to companypensate the manufacturers in the companytext of the spurt in the price of various inputs and had numberbearing on the selling price for the dealers who were number companycerned with the companyt of production.
1960 per ton from the date of that numberification.
The dealers started selling at the new rates fixed in that numberification for the several varieties of fertilizers.
Since the said numberification issued by the Central Government was silent the State Government which appears to have been more vigilant stepped in and exercised powers which were companyferred on it by the DIR.
910 per ton in respect of Urea 46 Nitrogen as against permitted profit margin of Rs.
But in all the appeals before us, the judgment in W.P. No.
3421 of 1974 alone was referred to.
This part of the High Courts order has become final and has number been challenged by the State Government.
The undisputed fact is that the price fixed for the sale of the fertilizer to dealers was Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
It was in this background that the dealers instituted the petitions giving rise to the present appeals by certificate, challenging the legality and validity of the impugned numberification issued by the State Government on June 14 1974.
1090 per ton companyld have been sold to the cultivators at Rs.
1090 per ton in respect of stocks acquired at the lower rates.
The Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged the validity of a numberification dated 14 6 1974 issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of the power companyferred by Rule 114 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971, directing that numberregistered dealer of fertilizer shall charge or retain, enter into or enforce any companytract for charging, in respect of any fertilizer sold to any person on or after 1.6.1974, from any stock held on 31.5.1974, a price exceeding the maximum price fixed by the Central Government for the sale of fertilizer under an earlier numberification dated 11.10.1973 issued under Clause 3 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1957 made in exercise of the power companyferred by s. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as it prevailed on 31 5 1974.
VARADARAJAN, J. Civil Appeal 1656 of 1974 is by special leave.
1005 per ton by selling that stock at the new sale price of Rs.
950 per ton in respect of the stock which had been purchased by them prior to 1.6.1974 at Rs.
This companytention was rejected by the learned Judges of the High Court as being unacceptable.
Nitrogen made available to the dealers for effecting sales to the cultivators at Rs.
1050 per ton with effect from 1.6.1974.
3421 of 1974 was treated as the leading case.
The Writ Petitions challenged also an order dated 18.6.1974 passed by the District Agricultural Officers directing registered dealers of fertilizers to refund the excess price charged on the sale of fertilizer effected on or after 1.6.1974 from out of the stock which was in existence on 31.5.1974.
The decisions were rendered in Writ Petition No.
Thus they would have been enabled to make a wind fall bumper profit of Rs.
The impugned numberification was issued in order to meet a problem which arose in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the situation.
The Writ Petitions sought the quashing of the said numberification dated 14.6.1974 and also a direction to the District Agricultural Officers and other District Authorities number to ask the dealers to refund the excess in respect of sales companypleted prior to the date of that numberification.
referred to as Act hereinafter .
The High Court has, while upholding the validity of the numberification dated 14.6.1974 and dismissing the prayer for quashing the same, directed the District Agricultural Officers and other District Authorities number to enforce the order for refund of the excess price realized on the sale of fertilizer up to 14.6.1974 from the stocks which were in existence on 31.5.1974.
3421 of 1974 for one batch and in another Writ Petition of 1974 for the other batch.
It is in the backdrop of these undisputed facts that the question regarding the validity of the impugned numberification dated June 14 1974 issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh came to be challenged before the High Court of Allahabad.
All the appeals arise out of the judgment of a Division Bench of that High Court in a batch of writ Petitions out of which W.P. No.
Under this numberification the registered dealers were prohibited from charging to the cultivators price in excess of the maximum price prevailing immediately prior to the upward revision authorised by the Central Government on June 1, 1974 in respect of stocks acquired at pre revision rates held by the dealers on the eve of the upward revision of prices.
