INTRODUCTION
This particular case Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd v. State of Haryana is concerned with the concept of laying procedure and is one of the landmark judgements involving whether laying a procedure is simply obligatory or directory in nature by the delegated legislation before the houses of parliament. In India, the impacts of not being in accordance with the laying arrangements depend on whether the arrangements found within the act which authorize are registry or obligatory in nature. Even in case the laying prerequisite is merely a registry and not obligatory in nature, the rules built up by the regulatory specialist without complying with the laying prerequisite ought to not be permitted on the off chance that the rule-making method has thereby infringed or violated.
FACTS
The background of the case was that the officer of the Directorate General, of Technical Development in New Delhi inspected the spot by reviewing it on December 29th, 1964. The Development Officer examined the accounts of the appellant’s record of books mainly the company’s balance sheet. Eventually, it was ascertained that the company had made purchases of plain iron sheets from various suppliers and everything at a price higher than the limited legitimate price. This occurred in the company ever since January 1st of 1964 to January 12th of 1965 and approximately the company had purchased metric tons of about 60.03 of those plain iron sheets products. The authorities set this maximum limit for the product’s price after consulting the Iron and Steel Order, of 1965.
Thereafter, the appellant filed a suit under Criminal Procedure Code – Section 251, also charges under section 120B of IPC being that it is read with section 7 of the Essential Goods Act. As well, section 15 (3) of the Iron and Steel Order, 1965 was read along.
Initially, when filed the suit in trial court it dismissed the suit on June 4th, 1970. However, they made an argument that the order or the notification of the maximum price that was set by the government for different steel and iron commodities was not laid down in both houses of the parliament. Consequently, the order was not valid and so the charges for the order were thereby pronounced to be annulled. Thus far the suit was discharged.
Being discontented with the above–mentioned order of the trial court, put forward a written application or petition to the High Court of Haryana and Punjab. This petition was proposed in line with provisions of Article 226 and Article 227 of the Indian constitution. The high court made a statement thereby the verdict that in the first – place the legislature never gave that order out with a bad intention which will not come in accordance with section 3(6) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 that might result in making the order not being valid.
Accordingly, the nullity of the notice order cannot be merely vindicated by the fact that the notification was not laid before both houses of the parliament. additionally, the utilization of the word “shall” is not definite or final and the legislature’s purpose has to be deciphered by the court. The high court zeroed down two bases of foundation to validate that the provisions are in the nature of the directory and not mandatory because neither the orders were prohibited without the approval of the two houses of parliament as per section 6 (3),
- One is that, on the off chance that the clause isn’t conformed with, the nonappearance of any clause indicates the possibility.
- Another is that the inconvenience and segregation will affect the common public if the act or any instrumentally was found invalid due to disappointment to conform with a specific arrangement.
Once more discontented with the judgement of the High Court the appellants moved their petition and appealed in the criminal appellant jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. All the argument was stated again as that it was in the writ petition of the High Court.
ISSUES
- Firstly, is the laying procedure consolidated mandatory as per section 6 (3) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955?
- Secondly, the major issue was to identify if, in case the notification was void it set the maximum price for selling the iron and steel products for not being laid down in the two houses of the parliament.
ARGUMENTS
The appellants put their undertaking into address because the control orders and notices did not have lawful constraint since they were not presented within a sensible period to both the House of Parliament as per the Essential Commodities Act.
The respondents, however contrarily, fought that the provisions of sub-section (6) of Area 3 of the act, requiring that an arrangement be set sometime recently the House of Parliament, are registry and not obligatory, and the disappointment to accord with that prerequisite did not nullify the notice which the accused’s mens rea was apparent from different controls recorded by them as well as from the reality that they needed to extend their manufacturing and make more benefit.
JUDGEMENT
When it was appealed in the Supreme Court, the court stated that it ought to be distinguished that sub-section (6) of section 3 of the Act, by and large, requires that any direction made in understanding with section 3 by the Central Government or any officer or official expert of the Central Government might be brought sometime recently both Houses of Parliament and laid down as before long as conceivable after it has been made. But it does not give whether it would be subject to negative or agreed determination by either House of the Parliament. Additionally, there isn’t a moment where it indicates the time amid which the order needs to be laid down before both the houses nor does it indicate the punishment for not being in accordance with the directions for laying procedure of the order or to both the Houses of the Parliament.
The court also went on to cite and refer certain case laws. Stating that the prerequisite as to the laying of the order before two Houses of Parliament isn’t a condition point of reference but consequent to the making of the above-mentioned order. In other words, there’s no denial to the making of the orders without the endorsement of both Houses of Parliament.
“Therefore, the requirement as to laying contained in section 3(6) of the Act falls within the first category i.e. “simple laying” and is directory and not mandatory”. The case of “Jan Mohammad Noor Mohammad Begban vs State of Gujarat” was referred to for better ascertaining of the given reasoning.
Further then finally, the court stated that it can be concluded that the legislature’s deliberate was never to form the order or notice void by coming up short to accord with section 3(6) of the Essential Commodities Act. Subsequently, disappointment in yielding the order or notice before both Parliament Houses cannot result in the notice being invalidated. Due to this, it becomes superfluous for the court to accord with the other claim raised by the respondent to the impact that the previously stated notice was of an auxiliary in nature, it was not essential to create its validity by laying it to both Houses of Parliament. In this manner, the appellant’s petition was discharged.
CONCLUSION
Section 3 (6) of the act states that,
“Every order made under this section by the Central Government or by any officer or authority of the Central Government shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, as soon as may be, after it is made.”
The appellant has made the petition only after keeping in view of this particular section of the act. It states that any order made out as in this case the fixing of the maximum price should be in accordance with it before it is laid in both houses of the parliament. But still, the judgment of the case was contrary that the court dismissed the petition of the appellant. The court justified it by stating that the word “shall” in the section means that the usage of the word ‘shall’ isn’t definite and unequivocal of the matter. Thereby, the Court needs to discover the genuine intention of the governing body, which is the deciding figure, which will be done by looking carefully at the complete scope, nature, and plan of the statute. As it was held in a few other cases like, “State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava”, and “The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Babu Ram Upadhya”. As it was important to ascertain whether they were mandatory or just the directives.
