AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Surinder Singh, J.—By means of the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are Timber Trading Companies based at Yamunanagar, have impugned the vires of the order, dated June 21, 1973 passed by the Governor of Haryana by exercising powers conferred upon the Governor u/s 3 of the East Punjab Conservation of Firewood Supplies Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A copy of the impugned order is annexed as Annexure P/1 to the Writ petition The sting of the order as contained in Clause 3 is that a restriction has been placed on all persons not to transport firewood by rail, road or river from any place in any district to any place outside the district, except under the authority of and in accordance with, the conditions of a permit issued by the District Magistrate from which transport is to be effected. In one of the provision to Clause 3 of the order, certain areas have been exempt from the provisions of the order. As per Clause 6 of the order, the District Magistrate has been vested with the power to attach such conditions to any permit issued under Clause 3 as he may think fit and be is also empowered to cancel the permit at any time without assigning any reason.
Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned counsel for the petitioners who carries various weapons in his armoury, has high-lighted the main ground of attack by contending that the very requirement of section 3 of the Act bad not been complied with before the issuance of the impugned order In order to appreciate his contention, the relevant provision of section 3 of the Act may be extracted for facility of reference :
Power to control supply, distribution or use of firewood--
The State Government, so far as it appears to it to be necessary or expedient for conserving or maintaining supplies or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices, may by notified order, provide in regard to firewood : --
... ... ... ...
A perusal of the above provision would show that before passing an order under the same, the State Government is to be satisfied that a situation exists in which it is necessary or expediert for conserving or maintaining supplies of firewood or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices This satisfaction must be indicated in the order as per which restrictions are sought to be placed in respect of storage, distribution, transport, disposal etc. of firewood Mr. Sarin has rightly pointed that no such satisfaction is available from the impugned order. In support of his contention, Mr. Sarin has placed reliance upon Palaniswami Gounder and Others Vs. State of Madras, Represented by Taluk Supply Officer, Karur which was a case under the Madras Paddy and Rice (Movement Control) Order 1966. The contention now raised in respect of the impugned order was also noticed in the said authority and it was held that the order in that case was invalid as the State Government had not formed the necessary opinion as required under the relevant Act, i.e., section 3(1) of the Essential Commodities Act. The ratio of the Authority applies fully to the case in hand. Similarly, in Rohtas Industries Vs. S.D. Agarwal and Others, the words "if in the opinion of the Central Government there are circumstances suggesting............." were duly interpreted to mean that the existence of such circumstances is a condition precedent for the formation of the opinion by the Central Government By way of reply, the learned counsel for the State has merely adverted to the averment made in the written statement to the effect that the impugned order was issued after due consideration of the matter by the Government. This averment, however, does not suffice to meet the basic requirement of law, as noticed above.
In view of the fact that the very first ground of attack against the impugned order succeeds, Mr. Sarin does not feel the necessity of referring to the other objections to the validity of the order, as taken up in the Writ petition The result is that this writ petition succeeds and the impugned order passed by the Haryana Government on June 21, 1973 is struck down in view of the grounds, discussed above. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition.