A. K. JAIN & ORS versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

A. K. JAIN & ORS versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1955 validly empower the regulation of payment for sugarcane, Parliament is competent to legislate control over sugarcane by virtue of Entry 33 of List III, there is no violation of Article 19(1) by the rule requiring prompt payment for sugarcane, and the offence alleged is cognizable and may be investigated by the police.

Parties
Appellant: A. K. Jain & Ors.; Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 July 1969
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Patna High Court in Cr. W.j.c. No. 11 of 1966
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Essential Commodities Regulation, Sugarcane (control) Order, Legislative Competence, Fundamental Rights
Criminal Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Essential Commodities Regulation Sugarcane (control) Order Legislative Competence Fundamental Rights

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. K. Jain & Ors.

Appellant

Union of India & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Patna High Court in Cr. W.j.c. No. 11 of 1966

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1955 could be validly issued under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955
  2. 2 Whether Parliament was competent to enact section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act relating to control of sugarcane
  3. 3 Whether the impugned rule violated any fundamental right under Article 19(1) of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1955 validly empower the regulation of payment for sugarcane, Parliament is competent to legislate control over sugarcane by virtue of Entry 33 of List III, there is no violation of Article 19(1) by the rule requiring prompt payment for sugarcane, and the offence alleged is cognizable and may be investigated by the police.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.