THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, HAPUR, AND THREE OTHERS versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND TWO OTHERS.

·----- ---

: . "SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955)

in England ~an argument which· we have already ]tl avinchandt'a ·discarded. The argument founded on an assumed Mafatla_l legislative practice being thus out of the way, there can v. be no difficulty in applying its natural and grammatical Th• Commission~ meaning to the ordinary English word "income." As ofl•come-taz. · already observed, the word should be given it widest Bombay c.1y. connotation in ·view of the fact that it occurs in n.,;. Iegislativ"e head conferring legislative power. '

For reasons stated above we are of opinion that Act XXII of 1947 which amended the Indian Income-tax . Act by enlarging the definition of the term income in section 2(6-0) and introducing new head of income in section 6 and inserting the new section 12-B is int·ra vires the powers of the Central Legislature acting under entry 54 in List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Govern~ merit of India Act, 1935. In this view of the matter it is unnecessary for. us to consider or express any opinion as to the meaning, scope and ambit of entry 55 in that List. ·The appeal is accordingly dismis8ed with costs.

Appeal dismissed. ·

October I8.·

THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, HAPUR, AND THREE OTHERS

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND T\VO OTHERS.

[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., s. R. DAS,

GHULA~I HASAN, BHAGWATI and JAGANNADHADAS JJ.]

Uttar Pradesh Food-grains (Futures and Options Prohibition) Order, 1951-Uttar Pradesh Food-grains (Futures and Options Prohibition) Order, 1945-Restrictfons on dealings in pulses other thangram,....:.1,. both orders-Order o/'1951 partlu declared ultra vires by Supreme Court-Not so s. 9 thereof which repealrd Order of -1945-Whether Order of 1945 still fo force-Proper procedure for ' clarification of the matter • .

Uttar Pradesh Food-grains (Futures and Options Prohibition) Order, 1951, made it illegal and punishable offence for any · person to enter into any fntures in pulses other than gram, or to pa.y or receive or to agree to pay or receive a.ny margin rel.a.ting to such futures. Bys. 9 of that Order the Order of 1945·conlaining . similar provisions was repealed. An application qnd~r Art. S2 of

s.c.R. SUPREl\IE COURT REPORTS

the Constitution presented by several persons (including the z954 present petitioners) for the enforcement of their fundamental right under Art. 19(l)(g) of the Constitution to carry on their business The Chamber of and restraining the State from enforcing the Order of 1951 in so Commerce,Hapur. far as it related to· pulses other than gram and for declaration and three Others that s. 2(o) of the Order read with items 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the v. schedule thereto was illegal and ultra vire1 the State Government The State of succeeded in the Supreme Court and . the State of Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh was directed by the Supreme Court by its judgment dated the 15th. and two Others 1Iay, 1952, to abstain from giving effect to it.

On the 10th June, l953, lett~r (Exhi.bit to th~ petition) was addressed by the Deputy Commissioner, Food, Uttar Pradesh, to all Regional Food Controllers and Deputy Food Controllsrs and all District Magistrates in Uttar Pradesh instructing them to regard all futures in foodgrains mentioned in the Schedule to the 1945 Order including pulses other than gram as punishable. ·· -

It was contended on behalf ~f the State (i) .that section 3 of 1946 Act which reproduced s. 3 of the 1946 Ordinance conferred on the Central Goverllment ! extensiTe powers to· control production,- -supply. distribution of and trade and commerce-· in 0ssentia1 commodities and this power was delegated by the Central Govern'. ment to the Provincial Government by notification dated 21st October, 1946, under s. 4 of the 1946 Ordinance. ·The subsequent amendments made by two Notifications dated 5th March, 1947, and dated 15th November, 1947, withdrew the power so delegated only with respect to "edible oils and oil seeds and pulses other than gram" and such withdrawal was only with regard to production, snpply, and distribution ol those commodities but was not with regard to trade and commerce therein; (ii) that the Order of 1951 having been declared ultra "ires, the Order of 1945 which was continued bys. 5 of the Ordinance of 1946 and then by s.·17 of the Act of 1946 was still in force.

Held, (repelling the contentions) (i) that as the Order of i945 ceased to have effect with regard to the price, production; distribu· tion and movements of those commodities, that Order could not in any way continue to regulate or control trade or commerce in those -commodities and the two Notifications of 1947 quite effectively superseded the Order of 1945 so far as it purported to regulate or control the price, production, distribution and move· ment of or_ trade and commerce in edible oils and oil seeds and pnlses other than gram; ' ·

. (ii) tha-t'the Order of .1951 was not declared ultra vires and invalid in its entirety by the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 15th May, 1952. The Order was declared invalid in so far as it purported to restrict the dealings in edible oils and oil seeds and pulses other than gram. · The rest of the Order of 1951 and in particular s. 9 thereof by which the Order of 1945 had been with-drawn, remained unaffected by the judgment of the Supreme Court,

-------·-- ---

T /,, Chamber of Commerce, Hapur, and tliree Othtrs v.

The State of Uttar Pratksh o.ndtwo Ot!urs.

Strong disapproval was expressed by the Supreme Court of the \Vholly unwarranted attitude adopted by the officers of the State of Uttar Pradesh in circumventing the decision of the Supreme Court on flimsy pretext.

The contentions advanced on behalf of the State Government should have been advanced before the Supre1ne Court ~n the pre-vious occasion \vhen it delivered its judgment dated 15th May,. 1952, or the 1natter should have been brought before the Supreme Court by \vay of review if any review \.Vas competent.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Petition No. 309 of 1953.

U oder article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

K. C. fain and B. P. Maheshwari for the petitioners.

K. B. Ast!tana and C. P. Lal for the respondents. 1954. October 18. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DAs J.-This is petition made under article 32 of the Constitution by the Chamber of Commerce, Hapur and three individual jJersons praying for writ in the nature of mandamus directing the State of Uttar Pradesh and two of its officers in the Food Department to abstain from enforcing the Uttar Pradesh Food Grains (Futures and Options Prohibition) Order, 1945, or any orders or directions contained in the letters' issued by the respondents copies whereof are annexed to the petition and marked and D. The facts and circumstances leading up to this application may be shortly stated at the outset. The Chamber of Commerce, Hapur, is company-incorporated under the Indian Companies Act with it» registered office at Hapur. There are about 20() members of this Chamber of Commerce including petitioners Nos. 2 to 4. Petitioner No. 3 is also its President ancl Petitioner No. 2 is also member of its. Executive Committee. The members of the Chamber-carry on business in foodgrains including pulses both on ready and forward basis. The Chamber acts as clearing agent for commission and guarantees the performance of forward contracts by its members upon payment of margin money according to the rules.

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

On or about the 1st September, 1945, the U. P. Government, in exercise of pow,ers conferred on it by rule 81 (2) of the Defence of India Rules, issued Notification No. 8071/c.s. promulgating the United Provinces Food Grains (Futures and Options Prohibi-tion) Order, 1945, (hereinafter called "the 1945 Order"). Section 2(a) of that Order defined "foodgrains" as meaning any of the foodgrains mentioned in the schedule thereto. Arhar, peas, urd and moong were mentioned as items 6. 7, 8 and 9 of that schedule. Section 3 provided as follows :-

"3. No person shall--

( a) enter into any futures in foodgrains or pay or receive or agree to pay or receive any margin relating to any such futures ;

(b) enter into any options in food grains."

The Defence of India Rules expired on the 30th September, 1946, and consequently all orders made thereunder were also due to expire on the same date. On the 1st October, 1946, however, there came into force the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Ordinance, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1946 Ordinance") promulgated by the Governor-General and published in the Gazette of India on the 25th September, 1946. Section 3 of that Ordinance conferred on the Central Government extensive powers to control production, supply, distribution of and trade and com-merce in, essential commodities as defined in section 2(a) thereof. Section 4 authorised the Central Govern-ment to direct by notified order that the power to make orders under section 3 should, in relation to such matters and subject to such conditions as might be specified in the direction, be excercisable also by such officer subordinate to it or by such Provincial Govern-ment or such officer thereof as might be specified m the direction. Section 5 of that Ordinance ran as follows:-"5. Continuance 111 force of existing orders.-Until other provisions are made under this Ordinance, any order, whether notified or not, made by whatever authority under rule 80-B, or sub-rule (2) or sub-rule

(3) of rule 81 of the Defence of India Rules, in respect

The Chamber of Commerce, HaJluT. and three Others v. Tht Stat6of Uttar Pradeslt and two Otlin-s.

Das]~

The Chomb" of Gmmerce, HaJmr. and thrte Others

v. The State of Uttar Pradesh .and two Otkrs.

Das].

of any matter specified in section 3, which was in force immediately before the commencement of this Ordinance shall, notwithstanding the expiration of the said rules, continue in force so far as consistent with this Ordinance and be deemed to be an order made under section 3 ; and all appointments made, licenses or permits granted and directions issued under any such order and in force immediately before such commence-ment shall likewise continue in force and be deemed to be made, granted or issued in pursuance of this Ordinance."

The 1945 Order, therefore, continued in force untn other provisions were made under the 1946 Ordinance. In exercise of powers conferred on it by section 4 of the 1946 Ordinance the Government of India, on the 21st October, 1946, made the notified order No. PY603(2)-I directing that the powers conferred on it by section 3(1) of that Ordinance should, in relation to foodstuffs, be exercisable also by any Provincial Government, subject to certain conditions therein set out.

In November, 1946, was passed the Essential Sup-plies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946 (hereinafter called "the Act"). Section 3 of the Act reproduced section 3 of the 1946 Ordinance with certain modifications not material for our present purpose. Section 4 of the Act corresponds to section 4 of the 1946 Ordinance. The relevant portions of section 17 of the Act provide as follows:-

"17. Repeal and savings.-(1) The Essential Sup-plies (Temporary Powers) Ordinance, 1946 (XVIII of 1946), is herehy repealed. (2) Any order made or deemed to be made under the said Ordinance and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall continue in force and be deemed to be an order made under this Act ; and all appointments made, licences or permits granted and directions issued under any such order and in force immediately before such commencement shall likewise continue in force and be deemed to be made, granted or is~ued in pursuance of this Act.

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

In exercise of powers conferred on it by section 4 of th<". Act the Central Government, by Notification No. C. G. 603(2)-III(1), dated the 5th March, 1947, amended the abovementioned notified order No. PY 603(2)-I, dated the 21st October, 1946, by inserting after the word "foodstuff" the words "including cocoa-nut oil but excluding other edible oils and oilseeds." The net result of this notification was that "edible oils and oilseeds" were excluded from the scope or opera-tion of the delegated power. In other words, the power delegated to the Provincial Government was withdrawn in respect of "edible oils and oilseeds" so that the Provincial Government could not thenceforth make any order controlling the production, supply and distribution of or trade and commerce in "edible oils and oilseeds". On the same day another Notification, being Notification No. C. G. 603(2)-III(2), was issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred on it under section 3 of the Act directing that no order made or deemed to be made by Provincial Government under the Act should have effect from that date so as to prohibit or restrict the movement of edible oilseeds or oils other than cocoanut oil from any place in Province to any other place within or outside the Province, or so as to regulate or control the price, production or distribution thereof in any way. Tl!ere-fore, the 1945 Order ceased to have effect so as to pro-hibit or res_trict the movement of edible oilseeds or oils other than cocoanut oil or so to regulate or control the price, production or distribution thereof in any way. On the 15th November, 1947, two Notifications were issued by the Central Government. By Notification No. PY. 603(2)-VI(1) made under section 4 of the Act the Central Government made further amendment in Notification No. PY. 603(2)-I dated the 21st October, 1946, by inserting after the word "oil-seeds" the words "and pulses other than gram". The effect of this amendment was that "pulses other than gram" were

Tiu Clwnber)j C11mmtrce, Hll/IUf. amJ thrtt Otfiers v.

Tiu State of Uttar Pralksh and two Otlurs Das].

any futures in, amongst others, arhar, peas, urd and moong or to pay or receive or to agree to pay or receive any margin relating to any such futures. 10 members of the Chamber of Commerce, Hapur, including the present petitioners Nos. 2 to 4, on the 29th October, 1951, made an application to this Court under article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of their funda-mental right under article 19(1) (g) to carry on their business and prayed for the issue of mandamus restraining the State of Uttar Pradesh from enforcing the Uttar Pradesh Foodgrains (Futures and Options Prohibition) Order, 1951, in so far as it related to pulses other than gram and from exercising any power there-under and for declaration that section 2 (a) read with items 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the schedule thereto was illegal and ultra vires the powers of the State Govern-ment. That application succeeded and the offending Notification to the extent it dealt with arhar, peas, urd and moong was declared invalid and the State of Uttar Pradesh was directed to abstain from giving effect to it. As will appear from the judgment pronounced by this Court on the 15th May, 1952, on that application, it was not seriously disputed that the effect of the amendments referred to above was that the power to control and regulate trade originally delegated to the Provincial Government by Notification No. PY. 603(1)-I, dated the 21st October, 1946, was modified so as to exclude from the scope of such delegation "pulses other than gram". On the 10th June, 1953, letter (Ex. to the peti-tion) was addressed by the Deputy Commissioner, Food, Uttar Pradesh, to all Regional Food Controllers and Deputy Regional Food Controllers and all District Magistrates in Uttar Pradesh instructing them to regard all futures in foodgrains mentioned in the schedule to the 1945 Order including pulses other than gram as punishable. The reasoning advanced was that the Uttar Pradesh Foodgrains (Futures and Options Pro-hibition) Order, 1951, having been declared ultra vires by the judgment pronounced by this Court on the 15th May, 1952, that Order became unenforceable and

T ht Chamber of Comwrce, Hapur, and three Othtrs v.

Till :state of Uttar Pradesh and two Others.

Das].

Th< Chambe> of CM1UT10ce, Hapur, and three Others v.

TM State of Uttar Pradesh and two OtMrs. Das].

in full force. In our judgment there 1s no substance in either of the two arguments.

As we have already pointed out, two Notifications were published on the 5th March, 1947, and two Notifi-cations were issued on the 15th November, 1947. By Notification No. C. G. 603(2)-III(1) dated the 5th March, 1947, and Notification No. PY. 603 (2)-VI (1), dated the 15th November, 1947, the earlier Notifi-cation No. 603(2)-1, dated the 21st October, 1946, was amended by inserting therein the words "edible oils and oilseeds" and "pulses other than gram" and thereby excluding those commodities from the scope of the delegation. As result of these amendments the Provincial Governments could not, from and after the respective dates of those amending Notifications, make any order controlling production, supply, distribution of or trade and commerce in those commodities. These Notifications did not puport to affect Notifications that had been previously made. But simultaneously with these amending Notifications two more Notifications were issued, namely, Notification No. C.G. 603(2)-III(2), dated tl1e 5th March, 1947, and Notification No. PY. 603(2)-VI(2), dated the 15ili November, 1947. By these Notifications the Central Government directed iliat no order made or deemed to be made under the Act by Provincial Government should have effect so as to pro-hibit or restrict the movement of edible oils and oilseeds and pulses other than gram or to regulate or control the price, production or distribution of those commodities m any way. As result of ilie joint operation of these Notifications the 1945 Order ceased to have effect so as to prohibit or restrict the movement of edible oils and oilseeds and pulses other than gram or to regulate or control the price, production or distribution of those commodities. As that Order of 1945 ceased to have effect with regard to the price, production, distribution and movement of iliose commodities, it is not easy to comprehend how that Order could continue to regulate or control trade or commerce in those commodities• Trade or commerce in any commodity cannot be con-trolled unless ilie pnce, production, distribution and movement of that commodity can also be controlled. 16-88 S. C. India/59.

The Chamb•r of Commtrct?, apur J and thw Others

The State of Uttar Pradesh and two Others.

Das].

The Chamber of Commerce, Hapur, and three Others v. The Stale nf Uttat Pradtsh .and two Others. D., ].

It follows, therefore, contrary to the contentions of the State, that these two Notifications of 1947 quite effectively superseded the 1945 Order so far as it purported to regulate or control the price, produc-tion, distribution and movement of or trade and com-merce in edible oils and oilseeds and pulses other than gram. The second branch of the argument is equally fa lla-cious. It is wholly incorrect to say that the judgment pronounced by this Court on the 15th May, 1952, declared the Uttar Pradesh Foodgrains (Futures and Options Prohibition) Order, 1951, ultra vires and invalid in its entirety. That judgment only declared it invalid to the extent of the restrictions complained of by the then petitioners, namely, in so far as it purported to restrict dealings in edible oils and oilseeds and pulses other than gram. The rest of that Order of 1951 and in particular section 9 by which the 1945 Order had been withdrawn remained unaffected by that judgment of this Court. It is quite difficult to appreciate how, in the circumstances, the Order of 1945 can be regarded as having been rev.ived by the judgment in respect of edible oils and oilseeds and pulses other than gram in spite of the express withdrawal of that Order by section 9 of the Order of 1951 which otherwise remains operative.In our judgment there is no substance whatever in either of the two branches of argument advanced before us and this application must succeed. Accord-ingly we grant prayers (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the petition. Before concluding we desire to express our strong disapproval of the wholly unwarranted attitude adopted by the officers of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Assuming there was any substance in their contentions, the same should have been advanced before this Court on the previous occasion, for the contentions, if well-founded, would have been complete answer to that application. If the contentions were subsequently · discovered, then the same should have been brought before the Court by way of review, if any review lay.

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Instead of adopting that straightforward course the officers of the State have sought to circumvent the decision of this Court on flimsy pretext and covertly to challenge its correctness on an obviously untenable plea which has not even the merit of seeming plausibility. This conduct verges dangerously on contempt of this Court. We desire to make it quite clear that we view with great disfavour such unworthy attempt to get round the decision of this Court. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS

MYSORE CHROMITE LIMITED. [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., s. R. DAS, GHl)LAM HASAN, BHAGWATI and VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.)

Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (Act XI of 1922), s. 4-Profits derived by the assessee-W hether arose or were 1·eceived in British India in the present case.

The assessee con;ipaqy with its registered office in Mysore State and its management vested in Oakley Bowden Co. Ltd., Madras, sold Chrome ore to buyers mostly outside India who were in America and Europe. The sales to the purchasers in Europe were put through in London by Bowden Oakley and Co. Ltd., London, the agent of the assessee company in Europe, the said agent signing the contracts for sale in London. The sales to pur-<. chasers in America were effected through W. R. Grace & Co., New York, who bought for undisclosed principals, the contracts for sale to American purchasers being signed by W. R. Grace & Co., Ltd., New York, in America and by Oakley Bowden & Co. Ltd. (Madras), in Madras. Under both forms of contracts with European pur-chasers and American purchasers the price was f.O.B. Madras. Provision was made for weighment, sampling and assay of goods at destination. The course of dealing between the assessee company and the purchasers was as follows :-

Before the goods were actually shipped, the buyers used to open confirmed irrevocable Bankers' credit with some first class Bank in London. Being informed of the opening of such credit the

The Chamber of Commerce, Ha/UT, and three Others. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and two Others.