V.V.V. and Sons Edible Oils Limited, (Formerly known as V.V. Vaniaperumal and Sons) vs The State of Tamil Nadu

G. Rajasuria, J.—This petition has been filed for holding annulling or declaring the provisions of Clauses 9, 10, 12 and 14 of the Tamil Nadu

Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 2008 as violative and ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 301 of the Constitution of

India, by issuing a Writ of Declaration.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Government Advocate (Writs) for the respondents prays further time. In view of the

order which is going to be passed, no further adjournment is required.

After hearing the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the main writ petition itself could be disposed of

by passing the following order.

The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition as stood exposited from the affidavit accompanying the writ petition as well as from the

arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, could tersely and briefly set out thus:

The petitioner is a Private Limited Company doing business in Edible oils ever since 1942. While so, by virtue of Gazette Notification dated

13.08.2008, the Tamil Nadu Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 2008 came into vogue also. The grievance of the

petitioner in a nutshell is that the ceiling prescribed for manufacturing as well as storage of oil works injustice to the company as the status which

prevailed on 31.08.2006 was taken as the criterion for fixing the said ceiling whereas the order itself has come to vogue on 31.08.2008 and in

between the interregnum period, the petitioner developed his business to such an extent that it is capable of manufacturing as well as storing

quantifies much higher than what was prevailing as on 31.08.2006. Without taking into consideration, the consequences flowing from the

restrictions, the said order was passed and it virtually affects the right to conduct the business under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of

India.

The petitioner filed M.P(MD)No.2 of 2008 for stay of the operation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils

(Storage Control) Order, 2008, which my learned Predecessor dismissed. Now then, the petitioner filed M.P(MD)No.3 of 2008 for injuncting the

Government from taking action as against the petitioner for violating the said Order. In my opinion, M.P(MD)No.3 of 2008 filed is virtually for

obtaining the same relief which was dismissed by my learned Predecessor.

Now then, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has come forward to argue the entire writ petition itself in order to justify the contention of the

petitioner in this writ petition.

In view of the order which is going to be passed, I think that even counter by the other side is not required and accordingly, I proceed to decide

the main writ petition itself.

The impugned order has been passed under the Essential Commodities Act. I could lay my finger on paragraph No. 15 of the Tamil Nadu

Edible Oil Seeds and Edible Oils (Storage Control) Order, 2008, which is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

Order not to apply in certain cases. (1) Save as provided in Sub-clause (2); nothing contained in this Order shall apply to -

(i) the Food Corporation of India, established under the Food Corporation Act, 1964 (Central Act 37 of 1964),

(ii) the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, established by the Government,

(iii) other Corporation or a Company owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government or a Statutory Corporation.

(iv) a Central level or a State level Co-operative Society engaged in the production, procurement, sale, purchase or distribution of Edible Oil

Seeds and Edible Oils.

(2) The Government or the Commissioner may -

(i) if consider necessary, in the public interest or any other just and sufficient reason, by notification in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazetee, fix any

stock limit either generally or for specific period for the Corporation, Company and Co-operative Society referred to in Sub-clause (1); subject to

such conditions as may be specified in the notification;

(ii) call for any information from the Corporation, Company and Co-operative Society referred to in Sub-clause (1).

The purport of the aforesaid paragraph 15(1) is that it exempted the Government Corporations and Companies from the purview of the said

Order for certain reasons. However, the Companies like the petitioner, at first blush, are not readily could be seen as the one exempted from the

impugned order itself. It is a serious point to consider whether a Government Company doing commercial business could be differentiated for

better treatment leaving high and dry the other companies like the petitioner as per Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. It is also a

crucial and vital point to be decided as to the term ''Company'' referred to in paragraph 15(2) of the impugned order, as the one to be taken

independent of paragraph 15(1) of it. To take a cue, paragraph 6 of the order could be referred to as one which does not discriminate between

private and other sectors.

I am of the considered opinion that without filing straight away this petition, the Company could have very well approached the Government

seeking the relief, whereupon, the Government would have been able to consider it on merits. Hence, in this factual matrix, the following direction

is issued:

Within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the petitioner shall approach the Government seeking the relief

whereupon the Government shall consider it as expeditiously as possible purely on merits focusing its attention on the points raised here.

I make it clear that at present the serious contention raised in the writ petition challenging the vires of the impugned order, based on settled

precedents of the Honourable Apex Court, are not decided and if the petitioner could not get any favourable order from the Government, it is

open for the petitioner to challenge afresh on the same grounds set out in this writ petition in addition to other grounds if any.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would make an extempore submission that pending the Government considering the proposal, if the

authorities take any criminal prosecution, then the Company would be prejudiced, whereupon the learned Government Advocate would submit

that the said Order has come into force from 31.08.2008 and so far, no prosecution has been launched.

Recording the same, this petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.