Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner is an Association formed for protecting the interests of the consumers and has filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation for issuing writs/directions for ensuring availability of milk in Jabalpur area at fair prices. ( 2. ) THE facts briefly are that the petitioner had earlier filed a Public interest Litigation, W. P. No. 4731/2006 stating inter alia that milk had been notified as an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short the Act), but the State Government had not passed any orders fixing the price of milk. The Court passed an order dated 26-7-2006 directing the State government to fix the price of milk and milk products under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act so that the weaker sections of the society are able to buy milk at a fair price. Pursuant to the said order dated 26-7-2006 of the Court, the State Government passed an order dated 24-8-2006 saying that after due consideration it was decided not to invoke Section 3 (2) (c) of the Act for fixing the price of milk. Aggrieved by the said order dated 24-8-2006, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for a direction to the State government for fixing the price of milk at Jabalpur. ( 3. ) MR. P. G. Najpande, President of the Petitioner Association submitted that the petitioner has stated in Para 5. 6 of the petition that the rates at which milk is being sold at Jabalpur were Rs. 16/- per litre in the year 2003, rs. 17/- per litre in the year 2004, again Rs. 18/- per litre in the year 2004, Rs. 19/-per litre in the year 2005 and Rs. 20/- per litre in the year 2006. He submitted that the rate at which milk is being sold in Jabalpur is being increased by the private dairy owners every seven to eight months and the State Government has neither monitored the prices of milk nor controlled the increasing rates of milk at jabalpur as professed by the State Government in the order dated 24-8-2006. He submitted that in the return filed on behalf of the State Government, the respondents have not disputed the statements of the petitioner in Para 5. He submitted that in the return filed on behalf of the State Government, the respondents have not disputed the statements of the petitioner in Para 5. 6 of the writ petition that the rates of milk in Jabalpur has increased in the years 2003, 2004,2005 and 2006. He further submitted that it will be clear from a reading of section 3 of the Act and in particular clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act that the Central Government has sufficient power to pass an order for controlling the price at which any essential commodity including milk may be bought or sold. He further submitted that under Section 5 of the Act the Central government can direct that the power to make an order or issue notification under Section 3 shall, in relation to such matters and subject to such conditions, be exercised also by the State Government or such officer or authority subordinate to the State Government as may be specified in the direction. He submitted that the Central Government has vide Order No. G. S. R. 800, dated 9th June, 1978 directed that the power conferred on it by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act to make orders to provide for the matters specified in clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 in relation to foodstuffs may be exercised by the State Government subject to conditions specified therein. He submitted that milk is a foodstuff and therefore by virtue of the Central Government Order no. G. S. R. 800, dated 9th June, 1978, the State Government should pass an order under sub-section (1) of Section 3 read with sub-section (2) (c) of Section 3 of the Act providing for control of the price at which milk can be bought or sold in Jabalpur area. ( 4. ) MR. Vivekananda Awasthy, learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, relied on the reasons given by the State Government in the order dated 24-8-2006 as well as the Return and Additional Return filed on behalf of the respondents for not exercising the power vested in it by the Central government by the Order No. G. S. R. 800, dated 9th June, 1978 in relation to milk in Jabalpur area. ( 5. ( 5. ) WE have perused the order dated 24-8-2006 of the State government, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department and we find that it is stated therein that in view of the overall national policy on consumer welfare and pricing mechanism of foodstuffs and with the dismantling of licence- quota-permit raj, the present focus is on quality control, consumer awareness and free trade and the stress is on price monitoring and not price control and the Government of Madhya Pradesh too, with its explicit intention of ending inspector raj, has rescinded every control order in relation to foodstuffs and it is now widely recognized that price controls can lead to market distortion and benefit to unscrupulous traders and Government functionaries rather than the consumers and the Governments at all levels are restraining themselves from the populist impulses of simply issuing a price control price. With regard to Jabalpur, the order dated 24-8-2006 states thus:- "3. Jabalpur is not the poorest area of the State. The State government is keen to ensure that essential commodities are available to the needy at fair price all over the State. Administered prices, backed by huge subsidies from Central Government are available for food grains, sugar, kerosene, LPG etc. The State government has never used Section 3 (2) (c) of the EC Act for milk. Price control orders in respect of other food items have also been withdrawn. After due consideration it has been decided not to invoke Section 3 (2) (c) of EC Act for fixing the price of milk or milk products. " The aforesaid reasons given by the State Government in the order dated 24-8-2006 for not invoking Section 3 (2) (c) of the Act for fixing the price of milk in Jabalpur area, in our considered opinion, are not germane and relevant while deciding whether or not to make an order under Section 3 (2) (c) of the Act. ( 6. ) SUB-SECTIONS (1) and (2) (c) of Section 3 of the Act are quoted here in below:- "3. Powers to control production, supply, distribution, etc. ( 6. ) SUB-SECTIONS (1) and (2) (c) of Section 3 of the Act are quoted here in below:- "3. Powers to control production, supply, distribution, etc. , of essential commodities.- (1) If the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices [or for securing any essential commodity for the defence of India or the efficient conduct of military operations], it may, by order, provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply and distribution thereof and trade and commerce therein. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by sub-section (1), an order made thereunder may provide,- (a) for regulating by licenses, permits or otherwise the production or manufacture or any essential commodity; (b) for bringing under cultivation any waste or arable land, whether appurtenant to a building or not, for the growing thereon of food-crops generally or of specified food-crops, and for otherwise maintaining or increasing the cultivation of food-crops generally, or of specified food-crops; (c) for controlling the price at which any essential commodity may be bought or sold. " It will be clear from the language of Section 3 (1) and 3 (2) (c) quoted above that if the Government is of the opinion that it is necessary for inter alia securing the equitable distribution and availability at fair prices of any essential commodity, it may make an order for controlling the price at which essential commodity may be bought or sold. Hence, securing equitable distribution of milk and availability of milk at fair prices is what is relevant for deciding whether or not an order under Section 3 (2) (c) should be passed by the Government. Instead of applying mind to the need for securing equitable distribution of milk and availability of milk at fair price, the State Government appears to have kept in view a so-called overall nation policy of doing away with licence-quota-permit raj and of ensuring a regime of free trade, considerations which have no relevance whatsoever for a decision by the Government whether or not to make an order under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act for controlling the price at which milk may be bought and sold. ( 7. ( 7. ) ON the other hand, the Central Government having felt the necessity of delegating its power under Section 3 (1) and 3 (2) of the Act to the state Government to make orders for controlling the price at which foodstuff may be bought and sold for the purposes of ensuring the equitable distribution and availability at fair prices of foodstuff, has made the Order No. GSR 800, dated 9th June, 1978 under Section 5 of the Act delegating their said powers under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of the Act to the State Government to be exercised subject to the conditions specified therein. Although the word "may" is used in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of the Act, the discretion to make an order is not absolute, and whenever it is found that foodstuff is not available at fair price and its equitable distribution particularly to weaker sections of the society is therefore not possible, the State Government would be under duty to exercise such delegated power in consonance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. ( 8. ) IN Govindrao and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1222 , a Bench of the High Court held that the State Government was not compelled to grant money or pension because the exercise of the power under section 5 of the CP. and Berar Revocation of Land Revenue Exemption Act was discretionary, but the Supreme Court held that except in those cases where there are good grounds for not granting pension, Government is bound to make a grant to those who fulfill the required condition and the word "may" in sub-section (3) of Section 5 though apparently discretionary has to be read as must and thus the High Court was in error to think that the sub-section conferred an absolute discretion. In support of this conclusion, the Supreme court quoted the following passage from Maxwell on Interpretation of statutes:- "statutes which authorise persons to do acts for the benefit of others, or, as it is sometimes said, for the public good or the advancement of justice, have been given rise to controversy when conferring the authority in terms simply enabling and not mandatory. In enacting that they "may"; or "shall, if they think fit", or "shall have power", or that "it shall be lawful" for them to do such acts a statute appears to use the language of mere permission, but it has been so often decided as to have become an axiom that in such cases such expression may have - to say the least - a compulsory force, and so would seem to be modified by judicial exposition. " ( 9. ) ALTHOUGH it is stated in Para 5. 6 of the petition that the rates of milk at Jabalpur have been increasing year after year and has increased from Rs. 16/-per litre in 2003 to Rs. 20/- per litre in 2006, in the Return and Additional Return filed by the respondents, these statements in Para 5. 6 of the writ petition have not been disputed by the State Government. The State has also brought on record the fact that the Jabalpur Co-operative Milk Producers Union is selling pasteurized milk with varying fat content in poly-packs at the rate of Rs. 18/-, rs. 17/-, Rs. 16/- and Rs. 14/- per litre. Thus, it is evident that while the Dairy union is selling its best quality milk in poly-packs after pasteurisation at the rate of Rs. 18/- per litre, the private dairy owners are selling the same milk at the rate of Rs. 20/- per litre in the absence of fixation of price by the State Government under Section 3 (2) (c) of the Act resulting in the Essential Commodity being sold at an unfair price. In the Additional Return filed on behalf of the State government, on the other hand, the increase in the rates of milk has been brushed aside with the following reasons:- "8. As per petitioners own showing, price of milk has increased from Rs. 18 to Rs. 20 in the past three years. There has thus been increase of about 11% in the price of milk in the last three years. On the contrary price of cereals, pulses and edible oils have increased much manifolds. The petitioner has however not espoused any cause in regard to increase in the prices of other essential commodities like cereals, pulses and edible oils. There has thus been increase of about 11% in the price of milk in the last three years. On the contrary price of cereals, pulses and edible oils have increased much manifolds. The petitioner has however not espoused any cause in regard to increase in the prices of other essential commodities like cereals, pulses and edible oils. " It will be clear from the aforesaid reasons given in the Additional Return filed by the respondents that the State Government is unwilling to exercise its power under Section 3 (2) (c) of the Act as vested in it by the Central government under Section 5 of the Act by the Central Government Order No. G. S. R. 800, dated 9th June, 1978 for wholly extraneous considerations in disregard of its statutory duty conferred under the Act. We therefore, have no option but to quash the impugned order dated 24-8-2006 of the State government in the Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department and direct the State Government to make an order under Section 3 (2) (c) of the act for controlling the price of milk in Jabalpur area so that the same is available to weaker sections of the society in Jabalpur area at a fair price. ( 10. ) THE petitioner also prayed for a direction for registration of milk and milk product manufacturers under Milk and Milk Products Orders, 1992. Mr. Najpande referred to provisions of Clause 5 of the Milk and Milk Products orders, 1992 according to which on and from the date of commencement of the order, no person or manufacturer can set up a new plant or expand the capacity of the existing plant without obtaining registration/permission as the case may be from the concerned Registering Authority. Clause 5 of the Order states that the provisions for registration shall apply to such person who handles or is equipped to handle or who has in the establishment or unit under his ownership or control installed capacity for handling milk in excess of ten thousand litres per day or milk product containing milk solids in excess of five hundred tones per annum. In the return filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the department of Veterinary, Government of Madhya Pradesh is the Registering authority. In the return filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the department of Veterinary, Government of Madhya Pradesh is the Registering authority. We direct the respondent No. 3, the Commissioner, Veterinary services, Madhya Pradesh to ensure that the said provisions in Clause 5 of the milk and Milk Products Order, 1992 are complied with by plants located in the state of Madhya Pradesh. ( 11. ) THE petitioner has also prayed for a direction that an order under clause 20 of the Milk and Milk Products Order, 1992 be passed stopping export of milk from Jabalpur so that milk supply is maintained properly in Jabalpur area. In Para 9 of the return, it is stated by the respondents that movement restriction have intra- state, inter-state and national implications and, even so, if the petitioner approaches the State Government or the Central Government, the suggestion certainly will receive attention. After the return was filed, the court passed an order on 14-11-2006 calling upon the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to furnish a specific reply stating the quantum of milk per day available in jabalpur area and the requirement of milk for consumers of the Jabalpur area and with the help of these statistics to state whether or not there is actual shortage in supply of milk to the consumers in the Jabalpur area. Pursuant to the order passed by the Court on 14-11-2006, the respondents have stated in para 2 of the Additional Return that as per information furnished by the Joint director, Veterinary Services, Jabalpur, the estimated production of milk in the year 2005-06 in District Jabalpur is 1,03,147 Metric Ton, but statistic regarding requirement of milk and its export from Jabalpur is not available either with the statistics Department or with the Department of Veterinary Services and consequently it is not possible to furnish any information in this regard. In absence of proper statistics and information, the Court cannot direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pass any order stopping the export of milk under clause 20 of the Milk and Milk Products Order, 1992, but we direct the respondent Nos. In absence of proper statistics and information, the Court cannot direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pass any order stopping the export of milk under clause 20 of the Milk and Milk Products Order, 1992, but we direct the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 namely Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer protection Department and Secretary, Government of India and Controller, milk and Milk Product Order to collect the required information for the purposes of finding out the availability of milk in Jabalpur area and depending upon such information pass necessary orders in accordance with the provisions of the milk and Milk Products Order, 1992. ( 12. ) THE aforesaid directions will be complied with by the concerned authorities within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order from the petitioner. ( 13. ) THE writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs. Writ Petition allowed.