RAM CHANDRA MAWA LAL AND OTHERS ETC. v. STATE OF UITAR PRADESH ANJ? OTHERS ETC.

Rules, 1971 for consideration by the President. As already ·stated, if the •impugned State Government's notification is, however, con- sidered to be in the nature of a State law there'is nothing o~ the record to show that it was placed before the President .for coniideratiori and c had. received his asse!1t as already stated .. .· ·• Relylng upon the above decisitm in Zaverbhai Amaidas v. The . State of Bombay (supra) Mr. Manchanda .made a half-hearted plea · that the impugned State · Government's notification relates only to fertilizer which was carried· over from. the •.gtock held ~t the close 'f. D . of 31.5.1974 and thaf it is intend~d to protect agricultural consumers: from dealers making undue profit and should therefore, be· held to be_; valid in law. It is ·not possible to acce]lt this submi.ssion of "Mr. · Manchanda. There. is no basis, whatsoever, to presume, and it will . be totally uncharitable to the Central Government to presume, that' · the Centr~J. Government· which had ··assumed powers nn\ler the Essen, · . E · tial Commodities Act, )955 to control the distribution of fertilizer , arid make it a.vailable at fair prices to consumers was ignorant of or-, ' .. had overlooked: the fact while mhingthe notification dated 1.6.1974 .; fixing a higher price' for dealers to sell fertilizer to consumers with . effect from. tnat .date that there may be some stock of fertilizer on, 3).5.1974 .purchase!l by dealers at lower prices ·which 'may be carried; . F .aver for.s~le stibseq\lently. What has b~en done by° the State Gov- ernment under the ipipugned notification is utterly ,lacking in power • and cannot be allowed to stand merely because i( relates only tq a· . comparatively small quantity of fertilizer carried over from the stock ot 31.5.1974. and was intended to benefit and. protect a"gricultural 0

consumers and' p·revent dealers from making undue profits. For th~ ; G reasons stated above .the appeals are allowed and the .impugned State Government's notification dated .14.6.1974 is. quashed.' There will;, be an: order directing the District Agriculiural Officers ·and other• l District Authorities in the. State of Uttar Pradesh not to ask the dealers ~ ··to Tefund the excess in respect of the sales completed prior to the. date: H of the impug~ed notificatioli. The District Magistrates concerned. shall return the. n;ionies deposited with them by the dealers pursuant

· RAMCHANDRA MAWALAL v. ' u: p. S'{ATE°(Varadarajan, J.) . 3~5 tq. this Court's orders dated :2.9.1974 and 30.IOJ974. The respondents A II\ shall pay the. appellants' costs. There ,.;ill be>one set_ of advo.cate's

• fees in the batch of appeals in whicl) _the appellants are represented by Mr. Govindan Nair.and.another set of a_dvocate's fees in t~ other . ' set of. appeals in which Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad appears.for the appel- lants. · · ·. · . . _ " . : .. . · · ' B RS.K. Appeals dtsmiSsed.