Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Writ Petition No. 326 of 1957, decided on 15th August 1958.
, Ss. 3 & 4‑Price control ‑Whether to extend only to commodities in so far as they are subject of trade between Provinces‑Chief Commissioner fixing prices of beef and mutton in Karachi‑Whether ultra vires.
In pursuance of the powers delegated to him by a notification issued by the Central Government under section 4 of the Essential Supplies Act (III of 1957), the Chief Com missioner of Karachi, by virtue of the powers conferred by section '3 of the same Act, issued an order fixing the maximum prices of beef and mutton in Karachi. The legality of the order was attacked in a Writ Petition on the ground that since the Essential Supplies Act (III of 1957), deals with both price control and trade between the Provinces (but not with trade within a province) therefore, the Legislature must be presumed to have intended price control to extend only to commodities in so far as they are the subject of trade between Provinces.
Held, that the Act where it speaks of prices and their control has no such limiting words, whereas where it speaks of other controls it is careful to limit them by reference to trade between the Provinces [History of the legislation set out].
Ikhlas Ahmed's case P L D 1958 Kar. 283 ref.
, Arts. 5 and 170‑Statute administered in discriminatory manner‑Can be called in question as offending against Article 5.
East and West Steamship Co. v. Pakistan P L D 1958 S C
Muhammad Akram for Petitioners.
Attorney‑General and Z. C. Valliani for Respondents.
Dates of hearing : 7‑8‑58, 8‑8‑58 and 15‑8‑58.
--‑ In 1956 the Chief Commissioner of Karachi fixed prices of beef and mutton in purported pursuance of powers conferred by the Karachi Essential Articles (Price Control and Anti‑hoarding) Act, 1953. The legality of his order fixing the prices was attacked in Writ Petition 141 of 1957 Shahabuddin v. Pakistan and another (PLD 1957 kar. 854), and our learned brother Qadeeruddin quashed the order of the Chief Commissioner on 22‑6‑1957. Thereafter on the same date in pursuance of the powers delegated to him by a notification issued by the Central Government under section 4 of the Essential Supplies . Act (III of 1957) the Chief Commissioner, in virtue of the powers conferred by section 3 of the same Act, re‑issued the order fixing the maximum prices of beef and mutton in Karachi. Hence the present Writ Petition filed by the present 3 petitioners as representatives of the butcher's community of Karachi.
The relevant provisions of Act III of 1957 are as follows :‑
Whereas it is expedient to provide for price control and regulation of trade and commerce between the Provinces and between a Province and the Federal Capital in respect of, certain commodities."
Subsection (1) of section 3 provides :‑
"3(1) The Central Government, so far as it appears to it to be necessary or expedient for securing the equitable distribution of an essential commodity between the Provinces or between a Province and the Federal Capital and availability at fair prices, may, by notified order, provide for regulating the movement, transport and sale of the essential commodity between the Provinces or between a Province and the Federal Capital and for the prices to be charged or paid for it at any stage of transaction therein."
Subsection (2) states
"Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by subsection (1), an order made thereunder may provide‑"
and the subsection has 7 clauses of which clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) are relevant to this question of interpretation. They read as follows :‑
"(a) for controlling the prices at which any essential commodity may be bought or sold in any area ;
(b) for regulating by licences, permits or otherwise, the transport, movement and distribution between the Provinces or between a Province and the Federal Capital of an essential commodity ;
(c) for prohibiting the withholding of sale between the Provinces or between a Province and the Federal Capital of an essential commodity ordinarily kept for sale
(d) for requiring any person holding stock in the Federal
Capital or in a Province of an essential commodity to sell in another Province or in the Federal Capital the whole or specific part of the stock at such price to such persons or class of persons under such circumstances as may be specified in the order ;"
Mr. Akram contends that the notifications, issued by Government and the Chief Commissioner are ultra vires of Act III of 1957. His argument is that since Act III of 1957 deals with both price control and trade between the Provinces (but not with trade within a Province) therefore the Legislature must be presumed to have intended price control to extend only to commodities in so far as they are the subject of trade between Provinces.
The argument is unsound. The Act where it speaks of prices and their control has no such limiting words, whereas where it speaks of other controls it is careful to limit them by reference to trade between the Provinces. This view of the language of the Act is supported by the history of the legislation. The legisla tive authority which enacted Ordinance X/55 was not restricted either as to area or subject‑matter. When it came to replacing Ordinance X/55 the Central Government (who obviously initiated the new legislation) had to work through Parliament and the President. Parliament could legislate for price control, but as regards other controls it was limited to trade between the Provinces. The Provincial Legislatures alone could legislate for non‑price controls on trade within the Provinces, except Karachi to which Article 211 applied. Hence on the same day we find promulgated Ordinance IV/56 and the President's Order III/56 : the former deals with controls on trade between the Provinces, and with price control, while the President's Order in copying Ordinance X of 1955 in other aspects carefully omits all provisions as to price control, and the reason for this omission is obvious, namely, that price control was dealt with by Ordinance IV/1956. The history of legislation shewing how Ordinance IV/56 culminated without material change in Act III/57 is set out in my judgment in Ikhlas Ahmed's case (P L D 1958 Kar. 283), and need not be repeated here.
The second argument of Mr. Akram is shat the order of fixing prices offends against Article 5 of the Constitution. It was not argued that the Act itself is ex facie discriminatory, but it was argued that the statute was capable of being administered in a discriminatory manner, and that in fact the Chief Commissioner had so administered it.
In clause (c) of para. 9 of the Writ Petition, the reasons for this argument are stated as being "arbitrary fixation of maximum prices of mutton and beef, without reference to quality and without control on prices at the source; i.e. the prices of the livestock and without caring for securing reasonable profit in the turnover of the trade."
A further affidavit of the Assistant Director of Civil Supplies, Karachi, stated that on 14th September 1956, a general conference of various Government Officials, consumers and representatives of various trades, more particularly the representatives of meat, beef, vegetables; eggs and milk trade was held in order to consider fixing of fair prices in such a way as to give a reasonable margin of profits to the traders and at the same time to ensure that the commodities were available in the market at reasonable prices. As a result, sub‑committees were formed to go into detail of each trade. One of the sub‑committees was formed under the Chief Commissioner's Secretary for beef, meat, eggs, milk, poultry and fish, and on this representatives of consumers, traders and Govern ment officials were represented and/or co‑operated. A detailed report was submitted on 21‑9‑1956 in which calculation of prices was given from the stage of purchase of the animals from the interior till they were slaughtered and made available for sale to the consumers, and that upon consideration of this detailed report, the Chief Commissioner fixed the prices.
The counter‑affidavit in reply to the above of petitioner No. 1 stated that representatives of the meat selling community were not taken upon any inquiry committed. It continued
" It is possible that name of some stray man may have been caught hold .of by the Secretary of Chief Commissioner for showing his name on any unknown committee to make up a record to please the Chief Commissioner."
The affidavit traversed the statement in the affidavit of the Assistant Director of Civil Supplies that the Secretary of the A1‑Quresh Meat Stall‑holders Association has agreed to the price. It further stated that the rates fixed it was impossible to get "the most dry animal at Karachi
We see no reason why the affidavit of the Assistant Director of Civil Supplies should not be relied upon. This is to the effect that the Committee have gone into the questions relevant to the fixing of fair price, and that on this Committee consumers and traders were represented.
In East and West Steamship Company v. Pakistan (P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 41) the learned Chief Judge stated :‑
" ..there can be little dispute about the proposition that where a statutory, functionary acts malafide or in a partial, unjust and oppressive manner, the High Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction has power to giant relief to the aggrieved party, and it seems to me to be equally clear that if the allegation be that a statute is being administered by a functionary in a discriminatory manner, his action can be successfully called in question on the ground that it offends against Article of the Constitution."
The Chief Commissioner having before him relevant material gathered in a reasonable manner has fixed the prices. We see no ground for imputing rrr.rlu1jides of any kind to him. It need hardly be said that it is not open to us to act as a Court of‑ Appeal or Revising Authority as regards fixing prices, that discretionary function being vested in tile Chief Commissioner.
It remains to be said that Mr. Akram did not press the argument that beef and mutton do not fall within the category of foodstuffs or that the word "co w" in the notification should not include bulls and bullocks. He also, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of East and West Steamship Company, abandoned the contention that the order infringed Article 12 of the Constitution.
The result is that the petition is dismissed with costs.
K. B. A. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer