NEW INDIA SUGAR WORKS ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 29

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, O. CHINNAPPA REDDY

Case summary

leaving a reasonable margin of profit, there is never any question of infringement of f~nda· mental right to carry on business by imposing' reasonable restrictions....

Judgment text

NEW INDIA SUGAR WORKS ETC. ETC. v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. February 27, 1981 ' [S. MU. RTAZA FAZAL Au AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ. ] Retrospective operation oflaw-Order levying·duty on Khandsari issued- Order, whet. her applies to existing stocks or only to future stockSc--Price fixed less than manufacturing cost-Order, ifliable to be quashed. On the questions (I) whether an order imposing a levy on Khandsari could have retrospective operation so as to apply to sugar 1manufactured prior to the date of the order and (2) whether in fixing the price of levy sugar the Government should consider that the price fixed should be sufficient to •cover ihe manufacturing cost. HELD : L It is not the question of retrospectivity of a statute but its actual working that is relevant.. It is settled law that where a statute operates in future it cannot be said to be retrospective merely because within the sweep of its operation all existing rights are included.

Once the notifieation for imposing the levy was made it will naturally apply to the existing stocks of khandsari with the petitioners irrepsective of whether it was manufactured before or after . the order. [31B; 30G] 2; The policy of price control has for its dominant object equitable ·disJ tribution and availability of: the commodity at fair price to benefifthe consumers; Individual interest, however. precious, must yield to the larger interest of the community namely the consumers. Even if the petitioners have to b~ar some loss there could be no question of the restrictions imposed on· ·'them being unreasonabfo. [32 Bl . ' ~-' . The fixation of price would be in the interest of consumers rather than that ofthe producers.. Moreover since the petitioners were allowed to ·sell freely at any rate they: liked, the.

remaining 50% of sugar after, e~cluding the 50% w)lich they had \o give to levey as also the produce by the second anf} third processes, the loss; if any, caused to the petitioners, would be mini~nal. (32 G] . · '\, .. ORIGIJ"AL JURISDICTION: Writ . Petition•Nos. 896/81,,, 8Q~~8901 577~591, 592-606,. 6Q7-621,. 622:628,. 629-633, ;634-37,·; 964~88, 544. 545-575, 766-774; 775-776, 902-63, 897-901, 535-37, 532-J Petitions· disrnlssed. · . r ' .. ·. •I: '•i ,I! L · 1·, 1_1· ·, "°J , I) -, 11 '. '. ! . ,_,, .... , , -,.. I l: II• ! ' )