Case Explanation HCJO 774

You might also like

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 2

CASE EXPLANATION

RAJMAL JAIN VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

IMPORTANT LAWS COVERED IN THE CASE

1. Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955


2. Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955
3. Prevention of Malpractices Order 1988
4. Rajasthan Petroleum Products Order 1990

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Rajmal Jain along with other petitioners who held licenses for Barrel Point sale of Diesel have di -
rectly approached the High Court of Rajasthan by filing a writ petition against the border passed by
the Additional Food Commissioner , Government of Rajasthan and the against the order of the Min-
istry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.

FACTS OF THE CASE

An order was passed by the Additional Food Commissioner , Food and Civil Supplies Department,
Government of Rajasthan dated 19.12.2014 and the Order by the Central Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955. The petitioners all have a valid
and renewed license under the Rajasthan Petroleum Products Order. They have challenged the con-
stitutionality of the Central order and demanded to declare it ultra vires as the State order is already
applicable in Rajasthan.

QUESTION IN MATTER
1. Whether the order passed by the additional food commissioner is valid.
2. Whether the central order is unconstitutional and ultra vires.
3. Whether the state control order is valid in the state of Rajasthan.

JUDGMENT STATED

The powers of the Rajasthan Government was found to be delegated by the Central Government un-
der the Essential Commodities Act 1955 therefore the Central order supersedes the State order and
can be applied here. Even from the perspective of public interest and came to the conclusion that
since 2441 petrol pumps exist in Rajasthan now the restriction on barrel point is justified. Therefore
the appeals were dismissed and stay orders were vacated. The court also provided that if any li-
censee has stock left he may be allowed to sell it.

REFERENCE CASES IN JUDGMENT

The court does not refer to any case while dismissing this appeal.

You might also like