text stringlengths 5 5.67k |
|---|
The notice of demand (Annexure D) which has been issued in that behalf shows that the cane commission 3 NP per maund which has been demanded from the appellant by respondent No. 2 for the years 1959 60 and 1960 61, amounts to Rs. 1,26,152/86 nP. Ratio |
It is common ground that out of this amount, Rs. 54,037.57P represents the commission for the year 1959 60. Ratio |
We must accordingly hold that the demand made by respondent No. 2 for the payment of cess commission for the year 1959 60 amounting to Rs. 54,037.57P is invalid and the notice to that extent must be cancelled. Ratio |
In the result, the appeal substantially fails and the order passed by the High Court is confirmed, subject to the modification in regard to the demand for the payment of cane commission for the year 1959 60. Ratio |
There would be no order as to costs. RPC |
Appeal dismissed and Order modified. RPC |
It was just the other day that our brothers Ranganath Misra and M.M. Dutt, JJ. had to give directions in a case (Vincent Panikurbangara v. Union of India) where a public spirited litigant had complained about the unscrupulous exploitation of the Indian Drug and Pharmaceutical Market by multinational Corporations by put... |
In this group of cases we are faced with a different problem of alleged exploitation by big manufacturers of bulk drugs Ratio |
The problem is that of high prices, bearing, it is said, little relation to the cost of production to the manufacturers Ratio |
By way of illustration, we may straightaway mention a glaring instance of such high-pricing which was brought to our notice at the very commencement of the hearing Ratio |
Barlagan Ketone', a bulk drug, was not treated as an essential bulk drug under the Drugs (prices Control Ratio |
Order, 1970 and was not included in the schedule to that order Ratio |
A manufacturer was, under the provisions of that Order, free to continue to sell the drug at the price reported by him to the Central Government at the time of the commencement of the order, but was under an obligation not to increase the price without the prior approval of the Central Government Ratio |
The price which the manufacturer of Barlagan Kotone, reported to the Central Government in 1971 was Rs.24,735.68 per Kg FAC |
After the 1979 Drugs (prices Control FAC |
Order came into force, the distinction between essential and non-essential bulk drugs was abolished and a maximum price had to be fixed for Barlagan Ketone also like other bulk drugs FAC |
The manufacturer applied for fixation of price at Rs.8,500 per Kg FAC |
The Government, however, fixed the price at Rs.1,810 per Kg Ratio |
For the moment, ignoring the price fixed by the Government, we see that the price of Rs.24,735 per Kg Ratio |
at which the manufacturer was previously selling the drug and at which he continues to market the drug to this day because of the quashing of the order fixing the price by the High Court, is so unconsciously high even compared with the price claimed by himself that it appears to justify the charge that some manufacture... |
Profiteering, by itself, is evil Ratio |
Profiteering in the scarce resources of the community, much needed life-sustaining food-stuffs and lifesaving drugs is diabolic Ratio |
It is a menance which had to be lettered and curbed Ratio |
One of the principal objectives of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 is precisely that Ratio |
t must be remembered that Art STA |
39(b) enjoins a duty on the State towards securing 'that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good STA |
The Essential Commodities Act is a legislation towards that end STA |
S. 3(1) of the Essential Commodities Act enables the Central Government, if it is of opinion 'that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair price', to 'provide for regulating or prohibiti... |
In particular, s. 3(2)(c) enables the Central Government, to make an order providing for controlling the price at which any essential commodity may be bought or sold STA |
It is in pursuance of the powers granted to the Central Government by the Essential Commodities Act that first the Drugs (prices Control STA |
Order, 1970 and later the Drugs (prices Control STA |
Order, 1979 were made STA |
Armed with authority under the Drugs (prices Control FAC |
Order, 1979 the Central Government issued notifications fixing the maximum prices at which various indigenously manufactured bulk drugs may be sold by the manufacturers FAC |
These notifications were questioned on several grounds by the manufacturers and they have been quashed by the Delhi High Court on the ground of failure to observe the principles of natural justice FAC |
Since prices of 'formulations' are primarily dependent on prices of 'buli drugs', the notifications fixing the retail prices of formulations were also quashed FAC |
The manufacturers had also filed review petitions before the Government under paragraph 27 of the 1979 Order FAC |
The review petitions could not survive after the notifications sought to be reviewed had themselves been quashed FAC |
Nevertheless the High Court gave detailed directions regarding the manner of disposal of the review petitions by the High Court FAC |
The Union of India has preferred these appeals by Special leave of this Court against the judgment of the High Court FAC |
The case for the Union of India was presented to us ably by Shri G. Ramaswami, the learned Additional Solicitor General and the manufacturers were represented equally ably by Shri Anil Diwan FAC |
Before we turn to the terms of the Drugs (prices Control Ratio |
Order, 1979 we would like to make certain general observations and explain the legal position in regard to them Ratio |
We start with the observation, 'Price-fixation is neither the function nor the forte of the Court Ratio |
We concern ourselves neither with the policy nor with the rates Ratio |
But we do not totally deny ourselves the jurisdiction to enquire into the question, in appropriate proceedings, whether relevant considerations have gone in and irrelevant considerations kept out of the determination of the price Ratio |
For example, if the Legislature has decreed the pricing policy and prescribed the factors which should guide the determination of the price, we will, if necessary, enquire into the question whether the policy and the factors are present to the mind of the authorities specifying the price Ratio |
But our examination will stop there Ratio |
We will go no further Ratio |
We will not deluge ourselves with more facts and figures Ratio |
The assembling of the raw materials and the mechanics of price fixation are the concern of the executive and we leave it to them Ratio |
And, we will not revaluate the considerations even if the prices are demonstrably injurious to some manufacturers or producers Ratio |
The Court will, of course, examine if there is any hostile discrimination Ratio |
That is a different 'cup of tea' altogether Ratio |
The second observation we wish to make is, legislative action, plenary or subordinate, is not subject to rules of natural justice Ratio |
In the case of Parliamentary legislation, the proposition is self-evident Ratio |
In the case of subordinate 'legislation, it may happen that Parliament may itself provide for a notice and for a hearing-there are several instances of the legislature requiring the subordinate legislating authority to give public notice and a public hearing before say, for example, levying a municipal rate--,in which ... |
The right here given to rate payers or others is in the nature of a concession which is not to detract from the character of the activity as legislative and not quasijudicial Ratio |
But, where the legislature has not chosen to provide for any notice or hearing, no one can insist upon it and it will not be permissible to read natural justice into such legislative activity Ratio |
Occasionally, the legislature directs the subordinate legislating body to make 'such enquiry as it thinks fit' before making the subordinate legislation Ratio |
In such a situation, while such enquiry by the subordinate legislating body as it deems fit is a condition precedent to the subordinate legislation, the nature and the extent of the enquiry is in the discretion of the subordinate legislating body and the subordinate legislation is not open to question on the ground tha... |
The provision for 'such enquiry as it thinks fit' is generally an enabling provision, intended to facilitate the subordinate legislating body to obtain relevant information from all and whatever source and not intended to vest any right in any one other than the subordinate-legislating body Ratio |
It is the sort of enquiry which the legislature itself may cause to be made before legislating, an enquiry which will not confer any right on anyone Ratio |
The third observation we wish to make is, price fixation is more in the nature of a legislative activity than any other Ratio |
It is true that, with the proliferation of delegated legislation, there is a tendency for the line between legislation and administration to vanish into an illusion Ratio |
Administrative, quasi-judicial decisions tend to merge in legislative activity and, conversely, legislative activity tends to fade into and present an appearance of an administrative or quasi-judicial activity Ratio |
Any attempt to draw a distinct line between legislative and administrative functions, it has been said, is 'difficult in theory and impossible in practice Ratio |
Though difficult, it is necessary that the line must sometimes be drawn as different legal fights and consequences may ensue Ratio |
The distinction between the two has usually been expressed as 'one between the general and the particular Ratio |
A legislative act is the creation and promulgation of a general rule of conduct without reference to particular cases; an administrative act is the making and issue of a specific direction or the application of a general rule to a particular case in accordance with the requirements of policy Ratio |
Legislation is the process of formulating a general rule of conduct without reference to particular cases and usually operating in future; administration is the process of performing particular acts, of issuing particular orders or of making decisions which apply general rules to particular cases Ratio |
It has also been said "Rule making is normally directed toward the formulation of requirements having a general application to all members of a broadly identifiable class" while, "an adjudication, on the other hand, applies to specific individuals or situations Ratio |
But, this is only a bread distinction, not necessarily always true Ratio |
Administration and administrative adjudication may also be of general application and there may be legislation of particular application only Ratio |
That is not ruled out Ratio |
Again, adjudication determines past and present facts and declares rights and liabilities while legislation indicates the future course of action Ratio |
Adjudication is determinative of the past and the present while legislation is indicative of the future Ratio |
The object of the rule, the reach of its application, the rights and obligations arising out of it, its intended effect on past, present and future events, its form, the manner of its promulgation are some factors which may help in drawing the line between legislative and non-legislative acts Ratio |
A price fixation measure does not concern itself with the interests of an individual manufacturer or producer Ratio |
It is generally in relation to a particular commodity or class of commodities or transactions Ratio |
It is a direction of a general character, not directed against a particular situation Ratio |
It is intended to operate in the future Ratio |
It is conceived in the interests of the general consumer public Ratio |
The right of the citizen to obtain essential articles at fair prices and the duty of the State to so provide them are transformed into the power of the State to fix prices and the obligation of the producer to charge n6 more than the price fixed Ratio |
Viewed from whatever angle, the angle of general application the prospectivity of its effect, the public interest served, and the rights and obligations flowing therefrom, there can be no question that price fixation is ordinarily a legislative activity Ratio |
Pricefixation may occasionally assume an administrative or quasi-judicial character when it relates to acquisition or requisition of goods or property from individuals and it becomes necessary to fix the price separately in relation to such individuals Ratio |
Such situations may arise when the owner of property or goods is compelled to sell his property or goods to the Government or its nominee and the price to be paid is directed by the legislature to be determined according to the statutory guidelines laid down by it Ratio |
In such situations the determination of price may acquire aquasi-judicial character Ratio |
Otherwise, price fixation is generally a legislative activity Ratio |
We also wish to clear a misapprehension which appears to prevail in certain circles that price-fixation affects the manufacturer or producer primarily and therefore fairness requires that he be given an opportunity and that fair opportunity to the manufacturer or producer must be read into the procedure for price-fixat... |
We do not agree with the basic premise that price fixation primarily affects manufacturers and producers Ratio |
Those who are most vitally affected are the consumer public Ratio |
It is for their protection that price-fixation is resorted to and any increase in price affects them as seriously as any decrease does a manufacturer, if not more Ratio |
The three observations made by us are well-settled and wellfounded on authority Ratio |
The cases to which we shall now refer, will perhaps elucidate what we have tried, unfelicitously, to express Ratio |
In Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, [1974 PRE |
1 SCC 468 1973 Indlaw SC 291 a notification fixing the ex-factory price of certain counts of cotton yarn was questioned on the ground that the price had been arbitrarily fixed PRE |
After referring to Hari Shanker Bagla v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1955] 1 SCR 380 1954 Indlaw SC 135; Union of India v. Bhanamal Gulzarimal, [1960] 2 SCR 627 1959 Indlaw SC 127; Sri Krishna Rice Mills v. Joint Director (Food) 1965 Indlaw SC 93, (unreported); State of Rajasthan v. Nathmal and Mithamal, [1954] SCR 982 1... |
1973] 3 SCC 435 1972 Indlaw SC 334 and Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Union of India, [1972 PRE |
2 SCR 526 1971 Indlaw SC 291 a constitution bench of the court observed that the dominant object and the purpose of the legislation was the equitable distribution and availability of commodities at fair price and if profit and the producer's return were to be kept in the forefront, it would result in losing sight of th... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.