• PAGE ONE
• INDEX
• HOME

Coconut, copra not essential goods: HC

Our Legal Correspondent

CHENNAI, Aug. 10

THE Madras High Court has held that coconut and copra were not ``essential'' commodities under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or under the Tamil Nadu Essential Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984.

Hence, Mr. Justice E. Padmanabhan held, the District Collector, Erode and the District Supply Officer, Erode had no authority or jurisdiction either to seize or to proceed against coconut and copra under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Essential Article s (Regulation of Trade) Order or the Essential Commodities Act.

Allowing writ petitions from Mr. V. Rajangam, agriculturist, and three others, the judge said that the respondents had no authority or jurisdiction to seize the commodities and proceed against the petitioners. Coconut was not an essential commodity.

As regards copra, in the absence of any delegation or concurrence by the Central Government, the very inclusion of the commodity as an ``essential'' article under the Tamil Nadu Essential Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order was invalid and inoperative, and no action could be taken by relying upon the alleged violation by the petitioners of any of the clauses of the Regulation Order.

The petitioner said that he had collected 18,000 coconuts and transported them in a lorry from Perungudi to Kangeyam. On June 19, 2000, and the second respondent (DSO, Erode) seized the consignment along with the lorry at Kangeyam on the ground that ther e was restriction in movement of coconuts. Another petitioner procured 123 bags of copra and transported them in a lorry from Ponnamavaravathy in Vellore to Kangeyam. The petitioner said that coconut was not an essential commodity and it did not fall und er the scheduled commodities under the Essential Commodities Act. Hence, seizure of the coconuts along with the lorry was illegal, without authority and jurisdiction and contrary to law.

The second respondent submitted that the consignments of coconut and copra were not covered by any valid Bill or other indication of the licence no. etc. of the dealer who had purchased and moved the commodities.

Since coconut was an edible oil seed coming under the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Article (Regulation of Trade) Order, no dealer should carry on business in the same without a licence issued in that behalf. The respondent contended that the stocks of coco nut and copra were moved by persons not holding a licence to deal in edible oil seeds.

The judge said that it was clear that unless a particular commodity fell within one or other provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, no order could be promulgated by the State Government and impose licence or restrict on the manufacturing or process ing of such commodities. No material had been placed before the Court by the respondents to show that any concurrence had been secured from the Central Government by the State Government in respect of edible oil seeds or oil seeds at any time.

In respect of copra, the State Government had not been delegated with the authority under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act either to regulate or impose a licensing condition or to restrict or insist for securing a licence. There was no notifica tion also under the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) so far.

The judge held that the seizure of the commodities along with the lorries was illegal, and the respondents were bound to return forthwith the consignments of coconut as well as copra with the respective vehicles to the petitioners. The petitions were all owed.G>