CHANDRAKANT SAHA & ORS. ETC . versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

CHANDRAKANT SAHA & ORS. ETC . versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

The challenged provisions of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 as amended provide sufficient guidelines, are regulatory in character, do not amount to unreasonable restriction or confer arbitrary or uncanalised discretionary power, and the classification between rice hullers and millers is reasonable. Thus, the Act does not violate Articles 14, 19, or 301 of the Constitution.

Parties
Petitioners: Chandrakant Saha & Ors.; Respondents: Union of India & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 September 1978
Procedural Posture
Writ Petitions / Final Decision
Outcome
Petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Reasonableness of Restrictions, Uncanalised Powers, Licensing Requirement, Right to Trade, Equality Before Law
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Industrial Regulation Reasonableness of Restrictions Uncanalised Powers Licensing Requirement Right to Trade Equality Before Law

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chandrakant Saha & Ors.

Petitioners

Union of India & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Writ Petitions / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requirement for rice hullers to take licences under the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 as amended violates Articles 14, 19, and 301 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether Sections 5 and 6 of the Act contain unguided and uncanalised powers amounting to excessive delegation
  3. 3 Whether classification of rice millers and rice hullers is discriminatory

Ratio Decidendi

The challenged provisions of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 as amended provide sufficient guidelines, are regulatory in character, do not amount to unreasonable restriction or confer arbitrary or uncanalised discretionary power, and the classification between rice hullers and millers is reasonable. Thus, the Act does not violate Articles 14, 19, or 301 of the Constitution.

Court Disposition

Petitions dismissed

Orders

  • The rule in all writ petitions is discharged and the petitions are dismissed with costs in one set in leading cases, and without costs in others
  • Stay orders in all petitions are vacated