1423A

IN THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

AT NEW DELHI

CIRIMINAL APPEAL NO. XYZ/2018

PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 134 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

READ WITH ORDER XX RULE 1 OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013.

IN THE MATTER OF

COMPANY XYZ LTD. (REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR)

APPELLANT

v.

NCT OF DELHI (REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF DIRECTORATE

GENERAL OF TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT, NEW DELHI)

RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................................................iii

STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................................................iv

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...........................................................................................v

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION............................................................................................vi

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.............................................................................................vii

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED....................................................................................................1

1. The notification fixing the maximum selling price of the iron sheet in question is void

for not having been laid before both Houses of Parliament...................................................1

PRAYER FOR RELIEF.............................................................................................................4

ii
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1979 SC 321..................................................................1

Narendra Kumar v. Union of India AIR 1960 SC 430............................................................1,2

Other Authorities

Section 3(6) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955...............................................................2

Treatises

C.K. Thakker, Administrative Law (Eastern Book Company 1992) p.152...............................1

I.P. Massey, Administrative Law (Eastern Book Company) 9th Ed. 2017, p.113.......................1

I.P. Massey, Administrative Law (Eastern Book Company) 9th Ed. 2017, p.117.......................2

iii
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Development officer of the Directorate General of Technical Development, New Delhi

carried an on spot check of the Balance Sheet. It was discovered from an examination of the

said appellant’s books of accounts that the company had had acquired black plain iron sheets

from various parties at a rate higher than the maximum statutory price fixed for such sheets

by the Iron and Steel Controller in exercise of the powers vested in him under clause 15(1) of

the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Control Order). The

Essential Supplies Act, 1955 provided that rules made by the authority under this Act be

placed before both the Houses of the Parliament as soon as made. Parliament shall have

power to reject and amend the rules.

Special Magistrate framed charges under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section

7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 7 r/w clause 15(3) of the Control Order. As

the charges were already framed before the trial court, the appellants made application u/s

251 & 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Aggrieved by order of the Special Magistrate and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, by

filing a writ petition, under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the appellants have now

brought the case before the Supreme Court.

iv
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellant has approached this Honourable Supreme Court of India invoking its Criminal

appeal jurisdiction to admit and adjudicate upon the present matter under Article 134 of the

Constitution of India read with Order XX, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

v
 ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

1. WHETHER THE NOTIFICATION FIXING THE MAXIMUM SELLING

PRICE OF THE IRON SHEET IN QUESTION IS VOID FOR NOT HAVING BEEN

LAID BEFORE BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT?

vi
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. THE NOTIFICATION FIXING THE MAXIMUM SELLING PRICE OF THE

IRON SHEET IN QUESTION IS VOID FOR NOT HAVING BEEN LAID BEFORE

BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

Laying on the table of the House ensures that the powers are properly exercised by the

administration authority and there is no misuse of such powers by the executive. Section 3(6)

of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 which provided that the rules framed under the Act

must be laid before the both Houses of Parliament, are mandatory.

vii
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THE NOTIFICATION FIXING THE MAXIMUM SELLING PRICE OF THE

IRON SHEET IN QUESTION IS VOID FOR NOT HAVING BEEN LAID BEFORE

BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

It is open to parliament to confer upon anyone it likes the powers which it has but of the

parliament delegates legislative powers to any other authority i.e. executive, it must ensure

that those powers are properly exercised by the administration and there is no misuse of such

powers by the executive. Hence, parliamentary control over delegated legislation should be a

living continuity as a constitutional necessity. 1 This control mechanism is exercised through

the technique of “laying” on the table of the House rules and regulations framed by the

administrative authority.2 There is no general law in India regulating laying procedure, the

Scrutiny Committee, however, stated that rules must be laid on the table of the House as soon

as possible for the period of 30 days from the date of final publication of rules and subject to

such modification as the House may like to make.3

“Laying” on the table of the House serves two purposes: firstly, it helps the legislature in

informing as to what all rules have been made by the executive authorities in exercise of

delegated legislation. Secondly, it provides the forum to the legislators to question or

challenge the rules made or proposed to be made. Through this “safety valve” the legislature

exercises supervision, check and control over executive rule making power. The object of this

Laying techniques bring legislature into close and constant contact with the administration.

In India, however, the consequences of non-compliance with the laying provisions depend on

whether the provisions in the enabling Act are mandatory or directory. The Supreme Court 4

1
Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1979 SC 321.
2
I.P. Massey, Administrative Law (Eastern Book Company) 9th Ed. 2017, p.113.
3
C.K. Thakker, Administrative Law (Eastern Book Company 1992) p.152.
4
Narendra Kumar v. Union of India AIR 1960 SC 430.

1
clearly stated that the provisions of Section 3(6) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 5

which provided that the rules framed under the Act must be laid before the both Houses of

Parliament, are mandatory.

In the present factual matrix, an authorised officer examined the account’s book of the

appellant’s company and found that it had acquired black plain iron sheets from various

parties at a rate higher than the prescribed maximum statutory price fixed. The charges were

framed under the appellant’s company under required provisions of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 and Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It was found out that the grounds that

the Control Order and the notification which formed the basis of respondent’s prosecution did

not have the force of law as they had not been laid before the Houses of Parliament within a

reasonable time as required under section 3(6) of the Act.6

As we know that only mandatory rules and regulations are required to be laid on the table of

the House of Parliament, and as per the case of Narendra Kumar v. Union of India 7, the rules

framed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 must be laid before the both Houses of

Parliament and hence mandatory. Further, even if the requirement of laying is only directory

and not mandatory, the rules framed by the administration authority without conforming to

the requirement of laying would not be permissible. 8 Therefore, it is irrelevant whether the

rules are directory or mandatory and hence each and every rules framed by administrative

authority must be laid before the Parliament.

Hence, it is concluded that the prosecution inter alia on the grounds that the Control Order

and the notification which formed the basis of their prosecution did not have the force of law

as they had not been laid before the Houses of Parliament within a reasonable time as

required under Section 3(6) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955; that the Control Order
5
Section 3(6) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
6
Ibid.
7
Supra footnote 4.
8
I.P. Massey, Administrative Law (Eastern Book Company) 9th Ed. 2017, p.117.

2
and the Notification fixing the maximum selling price of the commodity in question for the

contravention of which the appellants had been hauled up were invalid.

3
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

In the lights of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most

humbly and respectfully prayed before this court that it may allow the criminal appeal,

declare that the notification fixing the maximum selling price of the iron sheet in question is

void.

And pass any other order in the favor of appellant which the court may deem fit in the ends of

Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully prayed.

Date: 7th September, 2018 S/d:

Counsel Code: 1423A (Counsel for Appellant)