Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 637 (GUJ)

Bhavansinh Ranjitsinh Parmar v. STATE

2000-08-01

D.M.DHARMADHIKARI, J.M.PANCHAL

body2000
J. M. PANCHAL, J. ( 1 ) BY means of filing these petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed to declare that Sec. 3 of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 is unconstitutional, ultra vires and beyond the legislative power of the Parliament under Entry 3 of list III of viith Schedule to the Constitution of India. The petitioners have further prayed to declare that the Central Government has no jurisdiction, competence, authority or power to provide for and prescribe the parameters governing the quality of essential commodity while exercising powers under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioners have also prayed to declare that Motor Diesel (Regulation of Supply and distribution and Prevention of Mal Practices) Order, 1998 is beyond the scope and purview of Sec. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and hence, beyond the power of the Central Government. Lastly, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the order dated May 29, 2000 passed by the District Magistrate, Surendrangar detaining each petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (the Act for short ). ( 2 ) ON April 28, 2000, the police authorities of Rajkot District intercepted four tankers containing liquid solvent. The solvent was brought for being delivered to retail outlets for mixing with petrol. The police authorities carried out a series of raids at each retail outlet selling petroleum products. The petitioner in SCA No. 5373 of 2000 is the Manager of the firm known as Madhur Raiji Petroleum which is authorised to sell petroleum products i. e. motor spirit, high speed diesel etc. The petitioners in SCA No. 5374 of 2000 is the manager of Mandavraiji Filling Station which is also authorised to deal in petroleum products. The retail outlets wherein the petitioners are working as Managers were also checked by the authorities of Civil Supplies Department on April 28, 2000. Checking was made by the authorities in exercise of powers conferred by the Essential Commodities act, 1955 read with provisions of Motor Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Mal Practices) Order, 1998 (the Order for short ). Checking was made by the authorities in exercise of powers conferred by the Essential Commodities act, 1955 read with provisions of Motor Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Mal Practices) Order, 1998 (the Order for short ). After the search of retail outlet, the petroleum product was seized which action is challenged by the respective petitioner in SCA No. 4406 of 2000 and SCA No. 4476 of 2000. At the time of search of retail outlets, samples of petroleum were drawn by the authorities and were set to the approved Laboratory for analysis. On the basis of the report of analysis, the District magistrate, Surendranagar was satisfied that petitioners were selling adulterated motor spirit and it was necessary to prevent the petitioners from acting in any manner prejudicial the maintenance of supplies of petroleum which is essential to the commodity. Therefore, he has made order directing the petitioners to be detained under the Act. According to the petitioners, maintenance of quality and standard of essential commodity is not within the purview of the Essential Commodities Act as the said Act is intended to provide for control of maintenance, supply and distribution of and trade and commerce in essential commodities. The petitioners have claimed that Essential Commodities Act does not deal with the quality of an essential commodity and as the legislature has enacted laws for the purpose of governing quality of essential commodities, no offence under the Essential commodities Act can be said to have taken place merely on the basis of discrepancy in the quality of petroleum product. The case of the petitioners is that as the Essential commodities Act does not deal with the question of quality of essential commodity, the central Government has no jurisdiction, authority or power to lay down parameters of petroleum products by way of making Order of 1998 and the Order of 1998 being beyond the rule making power of the Central Government, should be declared to be ultra vires what is asserted is that Sec. 3 of the Act is beyond the legislative competence of the parliament. Elaborating the said stand, it is maintained that Entry 3 in List III provides for legislative power of Parliament to enact laws for preventive detention and law can be made providing for preventive detention, but the question of quality of essential commodity is not the question for which the Parliament is empowered to enact law. providing for preventive detention and, therefore, Sec. 3 is ultra vires. According to the petitioners, Sec. 3 of the Act does not empower the competent authority to exercise power of detention on alleged discrepancy in the quality of essential commodity and, therefore, if Sec. 3 of the Act is read or interpreted to mean that the competent authority can exercise power of detention in case of discrepancy in quality of essential commodity, Sec. 3 of the Act should be treated as beyond legislative power of the Parliament. Under the circumstances, the petitioners have filed the present petitions and claimed reliefs to which reference is made earlier. ( 3 ) MR. N. D. Nanavati, learned senior counsel for the petitioners pleaded that so far as the subject of preventive detention is concerned, the law making power with respect to preventive detention is provided by the Constitution of India in the Concurrent List, Entry 3 in List III with respect to which the Parliament and the State Legislature can enact law providing for preventive detention and on true interpretation of Entry 3, it is evident that neither the Parliament nor the State Legislature is conferred with law making power to provide for preventive detention when any essential commodity is found sub-standard. It was emphasized that the Preamble of the Act indicates that the Act is enacted to provide for detention for two purposes viz. (i) prevention of black-marketing of essential commodities and (ii) maintenance of supply of essential commodities and as the parliament has no legislative power to provide for preventive detention when any essential commodity is adulterated, Sec. 3 should be held to be ultra vires. (i) prevention of black-marketing of essential commodities and (ii) maintenance of supply of essential commodities and as the parliament has no legislative power to provide for preventive detention when any essential commodity is adulterated, Sec. 3 should be held to be ultra vires. It was maintained that the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 does not deal with the equality of an essential commodity and as the Central Government has no jurisdiction, authority or power to lay down parameters by way of making order in purported exercise of power under Sec. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, the Order of 1998 being demonstrably beyond the rule making power of the Central Government, should be held to be invalid. What was urged was that as the material before the detaining authority does not show that the petitioners were committing or instigating to commit any offence punishable under the essential Commodities Act, 1955 or under any other law for the time being in force relating to control of production, supply and distribution of or trade and commerce in any commodity essential to the commodity, the order of detention could not have been passed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Kishore Amratlal Patel vs. Rajiv Takru, 1987 (1) GLH 543 . ( 4 ) MR. Akshay H. Mehta. learned senior standing counsel for the Central Government submitted that adulteration of essential commodity particularly of organized kind is an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services prejudicial to the life of the community and, therefore, Sec. 3 of the Act which enables the competent authority to pass detention order with a view to preventing a person from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supply of commodity essential the community cannot be said to be beyond the legislative power. What was emphasised was that under Sec. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Central Government has power to provide for regulating production or manufacture of any essential commodity including its quality and, therefore, the Order of 1998 which deals with quality of petroleum products cannot be said to be beyond the scope of Order making power conferred by Sec. 3 of the essential Commodities Act, 1955. According to the learned counsel for the Central government, supplies in the context of Sec. 3 of the Act means supplies of essential commodities in a wholesome form but does not include supply of adulterated substitute and, therefore, provisions of Sec. 3 of the Act, as well as the order of 1998 should be upheld by the Court. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the Central government placed reliance on the decisions rendered in (i) Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf), Delhi vs. Union of India, AIR 1965 SC 1167 and (ii) Delhi Municipality vs. Shivshankar, AIR 1991 SC 815. ( 5 ) MR. D. N. Patel, learned AGP has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the Central Government and contended that neither Sec. 3 of the Act nor the Order of 1998 is ultra vires and, therefore, petitions should be dismissed. ( 6 ) WE have taken into consideration the submission advanced at the Bar and relevant provisions of the Constitution, Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Act and Order of 1998. Under Entry 3 of List III of the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution, the Parliament has power to legislate on preventive detention for the reasons connected with security of the State, maintenance of public order or maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. In exercise of the said legislative power, the Parliament has enacted prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities act, 1980 to provide for detention of certain cases for the purpose of prevention of black-marketing and maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community and other matters connected there with. Thus, the Act is clearly relatable to Entry 3 inasmuch as it provides for preventive detention for the reasons connected with maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. Article 22 (3) (b) provides that nothing in Clauses (1) and (2) of Art. 22 would apply to any person who is arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive detention. Article 22 (3) (b) provides that nothing in Clauses (1) and (2) of Art. 22 would apply to any person who is arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive detention. Section 3 (1) of the act which is relevant for the purpose of deciding issues raised in the petitions reads as under:"3 (1) The Central Government or a State Government or any officer of the central Government not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to that Government specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that Government or any officer of a State Government not below the rank of a Secretary to that government specially empowered for the purposes of this section by that government, may, if satisfied, with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained". EXPLANATION : For the purpose of this sub-section, the expression "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community" means (A) committing or instigating any person to commit any offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), or under any other law for the time being in force relating to the control of the production, supply or distribution of, or trade and commerce in, any commodity essential to the community; or (B) dealing in any commodity (I) which is an essential commodity as defined in the Essential Commodities act, 1955 (10 of 1955), or (II) with respect to which provisions have been made in any such other laws as is referred to in Clause (a), with a view to making gain in any manner which may directly or indirectly defeat or tend to defeat the provisions of this Act or other law aforesaid. ( 7 ) A bare reading of the above quoted provisions makes it manifest that the competent authority may, if satisfied, with respect to any person, that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. In view of the explanation appended to Sec. 3 (1) of the Act, the expression acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community means committing or instigating any person to commit any offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or under any other law for the time being in force relating to the control of the production, supply or distribution, of, or trade and commerce in, any commodity essential to the community. The expression acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community also means dealing in any commodity which is an essential commodity as defined in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or with respect to which provisions have been made in any other law for the time being in force relating to control of production, supply and distribution of, or trade and commerce in, any commodity essential to the community, but dealing in such commodity must be with a view to making gain in any manner which may directly or indirectly defeat or tend to defeat the provisions of that Act or other law aforesaid. ( 8 ) THE Parliament has enacted the Essential Commodities Act, to provide in the interest of general public for control of production, supply and distribution of and trade and commerce in certain commodities. Section 2 defines certain phrases. Section 2 (a) enumerates essential commodities and Clause (viii) of the said sub-clause specifies that petroleum and petroleum products are essential commodities. Section 3 of the said Act empowers the Central Government to promulgate order to provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution of essential commodities and trade and commerce therein, if the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing supplies of the essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices or for securing any essential commodity or the defence of India or the efficient conduct of military operations. The power exercisable under Sec. 3 (1) is inter alia for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity. In exercise of the powers conferred by sec. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Central Government has made an order called the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1998. The power exercisable under Sec. 3 (1) is inter alia for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity. In exercise of the powers conferred by sec. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Central Government has made an order called the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1998. According to the said Order, adulteration means the introduction of any foreign substance into motor spirit/high speed diesel illegally or unauthorisedly with the result that the product does not conform to the requirements and specification of the product indicated in Schedule I to the said order. The word malpractice as per the definition includes the followings acts of omission and commission in respect of motor spirit and high speed diesel : (i) adulteration; (ii) pilferage; (iii) stock variation; (iv) unauthorised exchange; (v) unauthorised purchase; (vi) unauthorised sale; (vii) unauthorised possession; (viii) overcharging and (ix) sale of off-specification product. ( 9 ) THE net effect of the above quoted provisions is that sale of adulterated petroleum or petroleum product would amount to committing an offence under the Essential commodities Act, 1955 and would also amount to dealing in any commodity which is essential commodity with a view to making gain in any manner which may directly or indirectly defeat or tend to defeat the provisions of the said Act and, therefore, on reaching the requisite satisfaction, detention order can be passed against a person with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodity essential to the commodity. In Kishore Amratlal Patel (Supra), the detenu was carrying on manufacture groundnut oil in his mill and had allegedly committed breaches of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock declaration) Order, 1981. In the grounds of detention, it was inter alia stated that when two samples were taken by the food inspector, Rajkot from the stock of Kitchen Queen brand groundnut oil manufactured in the mill, it was found that the groundnut oil manufactured was not upto the standard required by the Prevention of Food Adulteration rules and that the detenu was indulging in manufacturing adulterated groundnut oil in his mill. It was argued that the aforesaid ground was totally extraneous to the scope and ambit of Sec. 3 of the Act under which the detention order was passed against the concerned detenu. It was argued that the aforesaid ground was totally extraneous to the scope and ambit of Sec. 3 of the Act under which the detention order was passed against the concerned detenu. While examining this plea, the Court noted that if any of the terms and conditions of the licence is committed breach of by holder of the licence, he would be held to have committed an offence as contemplated by Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and would make him liable to be prosecuted for the same. The Court noted that maintenance of quality and standard of manufacture of essential commodity was no even provided for in the terms and conditions of the pro-forma licence issued to the detenu. What was observed by the Division Bench was that the act of adulteration may expose the detenu to the music under the provisions of the Food Adulteration Act which is entirely a different enactment, but so far as the breach of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act is concerned, the said ground would not be covered by Sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities act and cannot be pressed into service as indicating an offence under the Essential commodities Act because the alleged breach of the provisions of the Essential commodities Act as indicated in ground No. 12 was not shown to have been covered by sec. 7 of the said Act. In view of the above referred to conclusions, it was held by the division bench that alleged breach of provisions of the Food Adulteration Act as mentioned in ground No. 12 was totally extraneous to the scope and amdit of Sec. 3 (1) of the Act and such ground could never furnish any valid material for supporting detention order. In our view, this decision is of no help to the petitioners case because nothing was pointed out to the Court which required the detenu of that case to maintain quality and standard of essential commodity. So far as the present case is concerned, one who deals in motor spirit and high speed diesel is bound to see that the product sold conforms to the requirements and specifications of the product indicated in Schedule I to the Order of 1998. So far as the present case is concerned, one who deals in motor spirit and high speed diesel is bound to see that the product sold conforms to the requirements and specifications of the product indicated in Schedule I to the Order of 1998. The question, therefore, which requires to be considered is whether in an Order which may be made by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by Sec. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, quality or parameters of petroleum and petroleum products can be prescribed or not and whether the Parliament is empowered to enact law providing for preventive detention on the ground of deficiency in the quality of essential commodity. ( 10 ) IN Hamdard Dawakhana (Supra), the Supreme Court while interpreting provisions of Sec. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has taken the view that the said Act authorised the Central Government to regulate the qualitative and quantitative production of essential commodities. A similar view is taken by the Supreme Court in delhi Municipality (Supra ). ( 11 ) THUS, when Sec. 3 (1) of the Essential Commodities Act authorises the Central government to regulate qualitative and quantitative production of essential commodities, we are of the considered opinion that it is idle to contend that an Order under Sec. 3 (1) of the Essential Commodities Act cannot be made by the Central government laying down standards and quality of an essential commodity. At this stage, it would be instructive to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bankatlal vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1975 SC 522 . In the said case, the appellant had been detained under sec. 3 (1) (a) (iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 as he was indulging in rampant adulteration of essential foodstuffs and supply thereof for consumption by the community at large. In the detention order, it was stated that there was reasonable apprehension that the detenu shall continue to indulge in adulteration and sale of adulterated foodstuffs and thereby act prejudicial in the matter of maintenance of supplies essential to the community and frustrate the objective of supply of pure foodstuffs to the community at large and there was not other way to prevent him from acting in such prejudicial manner otherwise than by invoking the provisions of Sec. 3 (1) (a) (iii) of the said Act. The order of detention was challenged before the Supreme Court on various grounds and one of the grounds urged was that the grounds communicated to the detenue were not germane having a direct nexus with the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The Supreme Court noted the provisions of Sec. 3 (1) of the said Act which inter alia empowered the competent authority to make order of detention if it was satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, it was necessary so to do, and negatived the said contention in the following terms:"18. It is not disputed that spices such as chilly powder, etc. are foodstuffs and as such are commodities essential to the life of the community. supplies in the context of Sec. 3 (1) (a) (iii) means the supply of essential commodities or foodstuffs in a wholesome form. It does not mean the supply of their adulterated substitute. There can be no doubt, therefore, that engagement in the process of adulteration of foodstuffs meant for sale, is an activity highly prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, more so when it is done in an organised manner and on a large scale. 19. In Misri Lal vs. The State, AIR 1951 Pat. 134 , a Full Bench of the Patna high Court speaking through Imam, J. (as he then was) took a different view in these terms: i do not think that the words maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community could reasonably carry the meaning that any one who adulterated foodstuffs would be acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies or the continuity of supplies. It is true that adulterated foodstuffs supplied to the community may be harmful to its health, but supplying such adulterated foodstuff would not be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies. The Act does not speak of profiteering, much less profiteering at the expense of the health of the community. 20. The above, we think is too narrow a view. It is true that adulterated foodstuffs supplied to the community may be harmful to its health, but supplying such adulterated foodstuff would not be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies. The Act does not speak of profiteering, much less profiteering at the expense of the health of the community. 20. The above, we think is too narrow a view. If it was intended to lay down as an absolute proposition of law, that in no circumstances food adulteration activity can be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, we would, with respect, disapprove it as not enunciating a correct principle. The view in Misri Lals case AIR 1951 Pat. 134 (FB) (Supra) was dissented from by a Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Hari Ram vs. State, 1974 Raj LW 26. Commenting on the decision of Misri Lais case that court said : in our opinion, the crucial words of the statute are acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies. The burden is not on maintenance as it merely imports continuity. The essence of the matter is that the act should not be prejudicial to the supply. A person is said to act to the detriment or acts injuriously. The next question is supply of what? We have already said the commodity which is essential to the community. Ata (flour) is certainly one of such articles and probably the most basic for keeping the soul and body together. If Ata is adulterated with some powder, what is supplied is not a commodity essential to the community but its counterfeit. The object of the Security Act is to deal effectively with the threats to the organized life and to the security of india. . . . . . IN essence, we regret to have to repeat that supply means the supply of essential commodity and not its counterfeit and those who are engaged in the process of counterfeiting an essential commodity are certainly acting prejudicially to the maintenance of supply of the essential commodity. In our opinion, therefore, adulterating an essential commodity is acting prejudicially to the maintenance of its supply and the provisions of Sec. 3 (1) (a) (iii) are clearly attracted. 21. This seems to be the correct line of approach but it does not stop at maintenance of supplies only. It extends further to services also. In our opinion, therefore, adulterating an essential commodity is acting prejudicially to the maintenance of its supply and the provisions of Sec. 3 (1) (a) (iii) are clearly attracted. 21. This seems to be the correct line of approach but it does not stop at maintenance of supplies only. It extends further to services also. One of the primary necessaries of life is food; one of the elementary obligations of a welfare state is to ensure food to its citizens. The concept of supplies and services intermingle in the discharge of that obligation by the State. Maintenance of sale of pure foodstuffs to the public, therefore, is both a supply and a service. A person who sells adulterated food to the people not only evinces a tendency to disrupt the even flow of essential supplies but also interrupts service to the community. Recently in Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar, ( AIR 1974 SC 911 ) a decision to which one of us was a party the connotation, scope and inter relationship of the terms supplies and services in Sec. 3 (l) (a) (iii) of the came up for examination in the context of black-marketing in foodgrains. What was said then may usefully be extracted now;light and power thus are commodities; so also food and water. Yet who will deny that light is a service or drinking water, for that matter? The touchstone of social control is that it must be a thing essential for the existence of the community, when crystallized it is supplies, when sublimated it is services. It depends in most cases on the angle from which you view and lens you use. Food is supplied, so is shipping and wagons, kerosene and gasoline. And yet they are services. At a feeding center for starving children you supply food, serve gruel. 22. Food adulteration activity, therefor, particularly of an organized kind, as in the present case, is an activity prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community which may justify an order of preventive detention under Sec. 3 (1) (a) (iii ). " ( 12 ) THE principle flowing from the above quoted decision is that supply in the context of Sec. 3 of the Act means supply of essential commodity in wholesome form. It does hot mean supply of its adulterated substitute. " ( 12 ) THE principle flowing from the above quoted decision is that supply in the context of Sec. 3 of the Act means supply of essential commodity in wholesome form. It does hot mean supply of its adulterated substitute. There can be no doubt that engagement in the process of adulteration of essential commodities meant for sale is an activity highly prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, more so, when it is done in an organised manner and on a large scale. While disapproving the view expressed by the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in misri Lal vs. The State, AIR 1951 Pat. 134 , what is observed by the Supreme Court is that the view that under no circumstances, adulteration activity can be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities, is not a correct principle. The Supreme court, in the said decision, has approved the view taken by the Division Bench of the rajasthan High Court in Hari Ram vs. State, 1974 Raj. 26, holding that supply means the supply of essential commodity and not its counterfeit and those who are engaged in the process of counterfeiting an essential commodity are certainly acting prejudicially to the maintenance of supply of the essential commodity. We may state that petroleum and petroleum products are primary necessities of life. There being wide disparity between the price of patrol and solvent, a dealer in petroleum products may be tempted to adulterate petrol with solvent with a view to making gain. Such activity would directly defeat the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Order of 1998. Petroleum product manufactured by the authorised manufacturers conforming to the specified standards is made available to dealers of petroleum products so that the same is made available in unadulterated form to the ordinary consumers. If petrol is adulterated with solvent, not only the consumer pays high price for petrol but also gets less quantity of petrol and, therefore, the act of adulteration must be treated as an act prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodity essential to the community. If petrol is adulterated with solvent, not only the consumer pays high price for petrol but also gets less quantity of petrol and, therefore, the act of adulteration must be treated as an act prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodity essential to the community. As the act of adulteration is prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of essential commodities, the parliament has legislative authority under Entry 3 of List III of the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution to enact Prevention of Black- marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 and Sec. 3 empowering a competent authority to pass detention order in case of adulteration of essential commodities is not beyond legislative competence. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme court in Bankatlal (Supra), it is futile to contend that the Parliament is not empowered to enact law providing for preventive detention in case of discrepancy in the quality of essential commodity. ( 13 ) FOR these reasons, it cannot be said that the Central Government has no power to make an order under Sec. 3 (1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 prescribing standards of quality of essential commodity. Therefore, neither Sec. 3 of the Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 nor provisions of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1998 can be said to be beyond the legislative competence. Therefore, validity of those provisions will have to be upheld. ( 14 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, it is held that Sec. 3 of the Prevention of Black- marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 is not beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament nor ultra vires in any manner. So also, the promulgation of the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1998. ( 15 ) ESSENTIAL Commodities Act, 1955. These petitions were listed before the Division bench because vires of the above referred to provisions were challenged. As we have upheld the validity of those provisions, these petitions are ordered to be listed before the court taking up such matters for disposal on merits and in accordance with law. ( 15 ) ESSENTIAL Commodities Act, 1955. These petitions were listed before the Division bench because vires of the above referred to provisions were challenged. As we have upheld the validity of those provisions, these petitions are ordered to be listed before the court taking up such matters for disposal on merits and in accordance with law. ( 16 ) PRAYER for grant of leave to appeal is rejected, as according to us, points raised are covered by the decisions of the Supreme Court. Prayer for extension of interim relief also cannot be granted. .