SAT PAL GUPTA & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

A B c D E F G H The term "foodstuffs" means food of any kind. The dictionar:Y meanings of "food" are not restricted to what is eaten by human beings for nourishment and sustenance. According to them, what one takes into the system to maintain life _and growth or what is taken into the body of an organism in order to sustain growth is food. [199 C-E] Rice bran, which is a bye-product of the husking and milling process of paddy, consists of the layer that lies between husk and the kernel. It is a food stuffWhicli is commonly used as poultry and cattle feed. Any stuff which is commonly used as food by the generality of _living beings_ is foodstuff ; it is not legitimate to restrict its ineaning to things used as food by _human_ _heinfis._ The animal kingdom is not any the Jess important in the cosmic scheme tban the human empire and it is a distortion to say that it is a matter of little or no concern to the State whether the cattle and the ·poultiy get their due ration of the means of their subsistence. Cattle feed and poultry feed are feed to the cattle and the poultry and therefore they are foodstuffs. (198 E-H] 196 SAT PAL GUPTA & ANR. _v._ STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. _February_ _s; 1982_ (Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J. AND A.D.KOSHAL, J.] _Essential Commodities Act,_ _1955-"Foodstuff"-Meaning_ _of-Rice bran used_ _to feed poultry a11d cattle-Whelher essential commodity_ _within_ _the_ _mea11ing_ _of the_ _Act._ Sub-clause (i) of section 2(a) of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 defines an ' 1 essential commodity" to mean "cattle fodder including oilcakes and other coilcentrates" and by sub--clause (v) an "essential commodity" me:lns "food~ stuffs, including edible oih1eeds and oils." Clause 3 of the Haryana Rice Bran (Distribution and Price) Control Order 1967 provides that no dealer or owner of a ri!=C mill shall sen or offer to sell or supply rice bran save against a permit granted by certain officers of the State Government. By a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the appellants impugned the validity of clause 3 of the Control Order on the ground that rice bran is not an essential commodity and that for this reason power under section 3 could not be exercised for the purpose of regulating its sale or supply. The High Court rejected the appellants' writ petition. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : Rice bran being a "foodstuff" wil~in the meaning of section 2(a) ~ (v) of the Act, it is an essential coinmodity and therefore, the-power conferred by section 3 can be used to regulate its production, sale or supply. [199 Fl / #### -- _-r_ SA'tPAL _v._ HARYANA _(Chandrachud,_ C.J.) _191_ **Cattle** **and** **poultry are** **living cOlnl)Onents** **of** **the** **natural** **environment** **and** **thero is no** **reason** **to exclude that** **which** **they eat** **or** **feed** **upon from** **the meaning** **of the** **word·''foodstuffs". If what** **the human beings eat** **is** **food, so is** **what** **the** **other living** **beings eat.** **"Cattle fodder"** **is** **expressly** **brought** **within** **the** **cOmpass** **of essential c;ommodities** **by section 2(a)** **(i).** **It** **would be** **illogical** **ir',** **in** **that con-** **text, rice** **bran** **is** **excluded from** **the** **purview** **of** **essential commodities** **on** **the** ground that it is eaten by the poultry and not by _Homo Sapitns._ (199 B-C] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1099(N) of 1972. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 12th October, 1971 of the Punjab aqd Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No. 3400 of 1971. _B.P .._ _Maheshwari_ arid _Suresh_ _Sethi_ for the Petitioner. _K.G._ _Bhagat_ and _M.N._ _Shroff_ for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, C.J. The appellants, in this appeal by special leave, are dealers in rice, paddy and rice ~Jan. They also have an associate rice milling and husking plant which is run under the name and style of Jagdamba Rice Mills, Traori. Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 10 -of 1955, empowers the Central Government, under the circumstances stated in that section, to issue notified orders providing for the regulation of production, supply and distribution of any essential commodity, Under Section 5, the Central Governmcint can delegate its powers to a State Govetnment or an officer or authority subordinate to it. In exercise of that power, the Central Government issued a noti **A** **B** c **D** E F G **H** fication on July 24, 1967 delegating to the State Governments the power conferred upon· it by Section 3 of the Act. In exercise of such del'egated power, Respondent I, the State of Haryana, promulgated the Haryana Rice Bran (Distribution and Price) Control Order, 1967. Clause 3 of the said Order provides that no dealer or owner of a rice mill shall sell -or offer to sell or supply rice bran save against a permit granted by the Director, Food and Supplies, or the District )\1agistrate or any othe~ officer authorised by the Director in that behalf .• The appellants filed a. writ petition under ·Article 226 of the Constitution · in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, challen$ing clause 3 of the aforesaid Control Order, on the 198 SUPllBMB COUllT llBPOllTS (19821 _3_ s.c.A. A ground that rice bran is not an essential commodity and therefore, the power conferred by section 3 of the Act cannot be exercised for the purpose of regulating its sale or supply. This contention has been negatived by the High Court. ; _-l--_ B c. D E F G H ) [feed and poultry (eed are food to the ] [ca~tle ] [and the poultry, and ] therefore they are foodstuffs. It is true that the power conferred by section 3( I) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, can be exercised by the Central Government or its delegate, only if it is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to provide for the regulation of any 'essen· tial commodity'. The only sub-clauses of section 2(a) which are relevant for the purpose of deciding whether rice bran is an essential commodity, are sub-clauses (i) and (v). Sub-clause (i) of section 2(a) defines an 'essential commodity' to mean "cattle fodder, including oilcakes and other .concentrates". By sub·clause (v), an 'essential commodity' means "foodstuffs, including edible oilseeds and oi\s". If rice bran is either cattle fodder or foodstuff, it would be an essential commodity and the Central Government or its dele- . gate, the State Government, would have the power to regulate its production, supply and distribution, and trade and commerce therein. ' Coming first to the question argued by Shri Mabeshwari as to whether rice bran is a 'foodstuff', it is well known that rice bran is commonly used as poultry feed and not uncommonly as cattle feed. This is undisputed. Rice bran is a bye-product of the husking and milling process of paddy and consists of the layer which lies between the husk and the kernel. The affidavit of Shri T.K. Banerji, Director, Food and Supplies, Haryaoa which was filed in the High Court shows that rice bran is used in place of wheat bran or wheat middlings in livestock feeding. To the same effect is the affidavit. filed in this Court by Shri H.D. Bansal, Director, Food and Supplies, Haryana. If this is the ·true position, we are unable to ~preciate that rice bran cannot be considered to be a foodstuff. /Any stuff which is commonly used as food by the generality of _living beings_ is foodstuff: it is not legitimate to restrict the meaning of that word to things which a.re used as food by _human_ _beings._ The animal kingdom is not any the less important in the cosmic scheme _r_ than the human empire and it is a distortion to say that it is a , matter of little or no concern _I_ to the State whether the cattle and the /; poultry get their due ration of the means of their subsistence. Cattle ###### -r-### -- # I SAtPAL \>. ltARYANA _(Chandrachud,_ t.J.) 199 The word 'foodstuffs' which occurs in clause (v) of Section 2(a) is not defined in the Act and therefore it mu>t receive its ordinary and natural meaning, that is to say, a meaning which takes account of and accords with the day-to-day affairs of life. Cattle and poultry are living componenis of the natural environment and there is no reason to exclude that which they eat or feed upon, from the meaning of the word 'foodstuffs'. If, what the human beings eat is food, so is what the other living beings eat. 'Cattle fodder' is expressly brought within the compass of essential commodities by clause (i) of section 2(a). It would be illogical if, in that context, rice bran is excluded from the purview of essential commodities on the groimd that it is eaten by the poultty and not by _Homo_ _Sapiens._ By 'foodstuffs' is meant food of any kiud. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (Third Edition) says that 'food' is "what one takes into the system to maintain life and growth". According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 'food' means "material consisting of carbohydrates, fats, proteins alld supplementary substances, that is taken or absorbed ·into the body of an organism in order to sustain growth, repair, and all vital processes and to furnish energy for all activity of the organism; something that nourishes or develops or sustains". These dictionary meanings of the word "food" are not restricted to what is eaten by human beings for nourishment and sustenance. According to them, what _one_ takes into the system to maintain life and growth or what is taken into the body of an _organism_ in order to .sustain growth is food. ·We are therefore of the op1mon that rice bran being a foodstuff within the meaning of section 2(a)(v) of the Act, it is an essential commodity and therefore, the power conferred by section 3 can be used to regulate its production, sale or supply. The affidavits filed on behalf of the State of Haryana have attempted to make out a case that rice bran is also used for human consumption. A research bulletin brought out by the Department of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Punjab University, Chandigarh, is cited therein as showing that the oil extracted from rice bran can be used in a variety of ways in the edible field as, for example, for fat-frying, cooking and in the preparation of salads and sauces, and that in Japan, it has been used for edible purposes for many years. This claim may. or may not be true but we would like to have better evidence to uphold it. It may be possible, in A B ·c 0 E F G H A B 200 SUPRBMB COURT RBPORTS [1982! 3 s.c.il. course of time, to process rice bran by the use of advanced food technology in order to make it a common article of food for human consumption. Our attention is drawn by Shri Bhagat, who appears on behalf of the Haryana Government, to a decision of this Court in _M/s_ _Sachdeva_ & _Sons_ & _Ors_ v. _State of_ _Punjab_ & _Ors_ (Civil Appeal No. 817 of 1980 decided on May 7, 1980) in which it was held that rice bran is "cattle fodder" within the meaning of section 2(a)(i) of the Act. We need not go into that question since we are of the view that rice bran, being a foodstuff, is an essential commodity. C The decisions in _The State of Bombay_ v. _Virkumar Gulabchand_ _Shah(')_ and _Shriniwas Pannalal Chockani_ v. _The Crown(')_ which were cited by Shri Maheshwari and Shri Bhagat respectively do not bear upon the question in issue before us and need not, therefore, be discussed. D For these reasons we dismiss the appeal, but without costs. P.B.R. _Appeal dismissed._ ~~_m_~~ [19521 2 s,c.R. 871 (2) A.I.R. (38) 1951 Nagpur 226 ## ·· /