eCourtsIndia
IndiaCode Laws
Section3
The Essential Commodities Act, 1955

Powers to control production, supply, distribution, etc., of essential commodities

In force From 01 Apr 1955 Act 10 of 1955 As on 15 Oct 2026

Act 10 of 1955 Ministry Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution Enacted 01 Apr 1955 In force 01 Apr 1955 Cited by 16 provisions Instruments 40

Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 deals with powers to control production, supply, distribution, etc., of essential commodities. 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 The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1955.

(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, 1[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[*****

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers conferred by sub-section (1), an order made thereunder may provide--

(a) for regulating by licences, permits or otherwise the production or manufacture of 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;

(d) for regulating by licences, permits or otherwise the storage, transport, distribution, disposal, acquisition, use or consumption of, any essential commodity;

(e) for prohibiting the withholding from sale of any essential commodity ordinarily kept for sale;

3[(f) for requiring any person holding in stock, or engaged in the production, or in the business of buying or selling, of any essential commodity,--

(a) to sell the whole or a specified part of the quantity held in stock or produced or received by him or,

(b) in the case of any such commodity which is likely to be produced or received by him, to sell the whole or a specified part of such commodity when produced or received by him,

to the Central Government or a State Government or to an officer or agent of such Government or to a Corporation owned or controlled by such Government or to such other person or class of persons and in such circumstances as may be specified in the order.

Explanation 1.--An order made under this clause in relation to foodgrains, edible oilseeds or edible oils, may, having regard to the estimated production, in the concerned area, of such foodgrains, edible oilseeds and edible oils, fix the quantity to be sold by the producers in such area and may also fix, or provide for the fixation of, such quantity on a graded basis, having regard to the aggregate of the area held by, or under the cultivation of, the producers.

Explanation 2.--For the purpose of this clause, production with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions includes manufacture of edible oils and sugar;]

(g) for regulating or prohibiting any class of commercial or financial transactions relating to foodstuffs 4*** which, in the opinion of the authority making the order, are, or, if unregulated, are likely to be, detrimental to the public interest;

(h) for collecting any information or statistics with a view to regulating or prohibiting any of the aforesaid matters;

(i) for requiring persons engaged in the production, supply or distribution of or trade and commerce in, any essential commodity to maintain and produce for inspection such books, accounts and records relating to their business and to furnish such information relating thereto, as may be specified in the order;

5[(ii) for the grant or issue of licences, permits or other documents, the charging of fees therefore, the deposit of such sum, if any, as may be specified in the order as security for the due performance of the conditions of any such licence, permit or other document, the forfeiture of the sum so deposited or any part thereof for contravention of any such conditions, and the adjudication of such forfeiture by such authority as may be specified in the order;]

5[(j) for any incidental and supplementary matters, including, in particular, the entry, search or examination of premises, aircraft, vessels, vehicles or other conveyances and animals, and the seizure by a person authorised to make such entry, search or examination,--

(i) of any articles in respect of which such person has reason to believe that a contravention of the order has been, is being, or is about to be committed and any packages, coverings or receptacles in which such articles are found;

(ii) of any aircraft, vessel, vehicle or other conveyance or animal used in carrying such articles, if such person has reason to believe that such aircraft, vessel, vehicle or other conveyance or animal is liable to be forfeited under the provisions of this Act;

7[(iii) of any books of accounts and documents which in the opinion of such person, may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act and the person from whose custody such books of accounts or documents are seized shall be entitled to make copies thereof or to take extracts therefrom in the presence of an officer having the custody of such books of accounts or documents.]]

(3) Where any person sells any essential commodity in compliance with an order made with reference to clause (f) of sub-section (2), there shall be paid to him the price therefore as hereinafter provided:--

(a) where the price can, consistently with the controlled price, if any, fixed under this section, be agreed upon, the agreed price;

(b) where no such agreement can be reached, the price calculated with reference to the controlled price, if any;

(c) where neither clause (a) nor clause (b) applies, the price calculated at the market rate prevailing in the locality at the date of sale.

8[(3A) (i) If the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary so to do for controlling the rise in prices or preventing the hoarding, of any food-stuff in any locality, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), the price at which the food-stuff shall be sold in the locality in compliance with an order made with reference to clause (f) of sub-section (2) shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of this sub-section.

(ii) Any notification issued under this sub-section shall remain in force for such period not exceeding three months as may be specified in the notification.

(iii) Where, after the issue of a notification under this sub-section, any person sells foodstuff of the kind specified therein and in the locality so specified, in compliance with an order made with reference to clause (f) of sub-section (2), there shall be paid to the seller as the price therefor--

(a) where the price can, consistently with the controlled price of the foodstuff, if any, fixed under this section, be agreed upon, the agreed price;

(b) where no such agreement can be reached, the price calculated with reference to the controlled price, if any;

(c) where neither clause (a) nor clause (b) applies, the price calculated with reference to average market rate prevailing in the locality during the period of three months immediately preceding the date of the notification.

(iv) For the purposes of sub-clause (c) of clause (iii), the average market rate prevailing in the locality shall be determined by an officer authorised by the Central Government in this behalf, with reference to the prevailing market rates for which published figures are available in respect of that locality or of a neighbouring locality; and the average market rate so determined shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court.]

9[(3B) Where any person is required, by an order made with reference to clause (f) of sub-section (2), to sell to the Central Government or a State Government or to an officer or agent of such Government or to a Corporation owned or controlled by such Government, any grade or variety of foodgrains, edible oilseeds or edible oils in relation to which no notification has been issued under sub-section (3A), or such notification having been issued, has ceased to be in force, there shall be paid to the person concerned, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sub-section (3), an amount equal to the procurement price of such foodgrains, edible oilseeds or edible oils, as the case may be, specified by the State Government, with the previous approval of the Central Government having regard to--

(a) the controlled price, if any, fixed under this section or by or under any other law for the time being in force for such grade or variety of foodgrains, edible oilseeds or edible oils;

(b) the general crop prospects;

(c) the need for making such grade or variety of foodgrains, edible oilseeds or edible oils available at reasonable prices to the consumers, particularly the vulnerable sections of the consumers; and

(d) the recommendations, if any, of the Agricultural Prices Commission with regard to the price of the concerned grade or variety of foodgrains, edible oilseeds or edible oils.]

10[(3C) Where any producer is required by an order made with reference to clause (f) of subsection (2) to sell any kind of sugar (whether to the Central Government or to a State Government or to an officer or agent of such Government or to any other person or class of persons) whether a notification was issued under sub-section (3A) or otherwise, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), there shall be paid to that producer only such amount as the Central Government may, by order, determine, having regard to--

(a) the fair and remunerative price, if any, determined by the Central Government as the price of sugarcane to be taken into account under this section;

(b) the manufacturing cost of sugar;

(c) the duty or tax, if any, paid or payable thereon; and

(d) a reasonable return on the capital employed in the business of manufacturing of sugar:

Provided that the Central Government may determine different prices, from time to time, for different areas or factories or varieties of sugar:

Provided further that where any provisional determination of price of levy sugar has been done in respect of sugar produced up to the sugar season 2008-2009, the final determination of price may be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of this sub-section as it stood immediately before the 1st day of October, 2009.

Explanation 11[I].-- For the purposes of this sub-section,--

(a) "fair and remunerative price" means the price of sugarcane determined by the Central Government under this section;

(b) "manufacturing cost of sugar" means the net cost incurred on conversion of sugarcane into sugar including net cost of transportation of sugarcane from the purchase centre to the factory gate, to the extent it is borne by the producer;

(c) "producer" means a person carrying on the business of manufacturing sugar;

(d) "reasonable return on the capital employed" means the return on net fixed assets plus working capital of a producer in relation to manufacturing of sugar including procurement of sugarcane at a fair and remunerative price determined under this section.]

12[Explanation II.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expressions "fair and remunerative price" referred to in clause (a), "manufacturing cost of sugar" referred to in clause (b) and "reasonable return on the capital employed" referred to in clause (d), of this sub-section do not include the price paid or payable under any order or any enactment of any State Government and any price agreed to between the producer and the grower or a sugarcane growers' co-operative society.]

13[(3D) The Central Government may direct that no producer, importer or exporter shall sell or otherwise dispose of or deliver any kind of sugar or remove any kind of sugar from the bonded go downs of the factory in which it is produced, whether such godowns are situated within the premises of the factory or outside or from the warehouses of the importers or exporters, as the case may be except under and in accordance with the direction issued by the Government:

Provided that this sub-section shall not affect the pledging of such sugar by any producer or importer in favour of any scheduled bank as defined in clause (e) of section 2 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934) or any corresponding new bank constituted under section 3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970), so, however, that no such hank shall sell the sugar pledged to it except under and in accordance with a direction issued by the Central Government.

(3E) The Central Government may, from time to time, by general or special order, direct any producer or importer or exporter or recognised dealer or any class of producers or recognised dealers, to take action regarding production, maintenance of stocks, storage, sale, grading, packing, marking, weighment, disposal, delivery and distribution of any kind of sugar in the manner specified in the direction.

Explanation.--For the purposes of sub-section (3D) and this sub-section,--

(a) "producer" means a person carrying on the business of manufacturing sugar;

(b) "recognised dealer'" means a person carrying on the business of purchasing, selling or distributing sugar;

(c) "sugar" includes plantation white sugar, raw sugar and refined sugar, whether indigenously produced or imported.]

(4) If the Central Government is of opinion that it is necessary so to do for maintaining or increasing the production and supply of an essential commodity, it may, by order, authorize any person (hereinafter referred to as an authorized controller) to exercise, with respect to the whole or any part of any such undertaking engaged in the production and supply of the commodity as may be specified in the order such functions of control as may be provided therein and so long as such order is in force with respect to any undertaking or part thereof,--

(a) the authorized controller shall exercise his functions in accordance with any instructions given to him by the Central Government, so, however, that he shall not have any power to give any direction inconsistent with the provisions of any enactment or any instrument determining the functions of the persons in-charge of the management of the undertaking, except in so far as may be specifically provided by the order; and

(b) the undertaking or part shall be carried on in accordance with any directions given by the authorised controller under the provisions of the order, and any person having any functions of management in relation to the undertaking or part shall comply with any such directions.

(5) An order made under this section shall,--

(a) in the case of an order of a general nature or affecting a class of persons, be notified in the Official Gazette; and

(b) in the case of an order directed to a specified individual be served on such individual--

(i) by delivering or tendering it to that individual, or

(ii) if it cannot be so delivered or tendered, by affixing it on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the premises in which that individual lives, and a written report there of shall be prepared and witnessed by two persons living in the neighbourhood.

(6) Every order made under this section by the Central Government or by any officer or authority of the Central Government shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, as soon as may be, after it is made.

STATE AMENDMENTS

Uttar Pradesh.--

Amendment of section 3 of Act X of 1955.--In section 3 of the principal Act, in sub-section (2), after clause (f), the following clause shall be inserted, namely:--

"(ff) for preventing the hoarding of any essential commodity;"

[Vide Uttar Pradesh Act 9 of 1974, s. 2]

Amendment of section 3.--In section 3 of the principal Act,--

(a) in sub-section (2), for clause (f), the following clause shall be substituted and be deemed always to have been substituted namely--

"(f) for requiring any person holding in stock, or engaged in the manufacture or production of, or in the business of buying or selling, any essential commodity to sell the whole or a specified part of the quantity held in stock or manufactured or produced or likely to be manufactured or produced by him or received or likely to be received by him in the course of said business of buying or selling, to the Central Government or a State Government or to an officer or agent of such Government or to such other person or class of person and in such circumstances as may be specified in the order;

Explanation.--An order relating to food grains made with reference to this clause,--

(i) may specify the prices, fixed by the State Government in this behalf, after taking into account the recommendations, if any, of the Agricultural Prices Commission and with the prior concurrence of the Central Government, as the amount which shall be paid for the food grain required to be sold under the order,

(ii) may fix or provide for the fixation of the quantity to be sold by a producer with reference to the area under cultivation and the availability of irrigation for production of the particular food grain to which the order relates, and also fix or provide for the fixation of such quantities on a graded basis having regard to the aggregate area held by or under the cultivation of different producers."

(b) in sub-section (3), for clause (c), substitute the following clauses which shall be Food deemed always to have been substituted, namely:--

"(c) in the case of food grains, where neither clause (a) nor clause (b) applies, the price, if any, specified in the said order;

(d) where neither clause (a) nor (b), nor (c) applies, the price calculated at the market rate prevailing in the locality at the date of sale."

(c) in sub-section (3B), after clause (i), insert the following clause which shall be deemed always to have been inserted, namely:--

"(ia) in the case of food grains, where no controlled price is fixed by an order made with reference to clause (c) of sub-section (2), the amount specified in the said Order made with reference to clause (f) of sub-section (2) for such grade or variety of food grains; or" [Vide Uttar Pradesh Act 18 of 1975, s. 4]

Amendment of section 3 of Act X of 1955.--In section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh, in sub-section (2), in clause (f), as substituted by the Essential Commodities (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1975, in the Explanation thereof, for sub-clause (II), the following sub-clause shall be substituted and be deemed always to have been substituted Namely:--

"(II) may fix or provide for the fixation of the quantity to be sold by a producer with reference to the area under cultivation for production of the particular (foodgrains to which the order relates, and also fix or provide for the fixation of such quantities on a graded basis having regard to the aggregate area held by or under the cultivation of different producers."

[Vide Uttar Pradesh Act 39 of 1975, s. 2]

Amendment of section 3 of Act no. 10 of 1955.--(1) In section 3 of the principal Act, in subsection (2), clause (f), as substituted by the Uttar Pradesh Amendment read with the Essential Commodities (Uttar Pradesh Second Amendment) Act, 1975 shall be omitted and deemed to have been omitted with effect from the date of the commencement of the Central Amendment.

(2) In the said sub-section, in clause (f), as substituted by the central Amendment, after Explanation 1, the following Explanation shall be inserted, namely:--

"Explanation I-A.--An order made this clause in relation to rice may, having regard to the milling capacity of a rice mill, fix the quantity to be sold by the licensed miller and may also fix or provide for the fixation of such quantity on a graded basis."

(3) In the said section 3, sub-section (3-B), as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Amendment, shall be committed and deemed to have been omitted with effect from the date of commencement of the central Amendment.

[Vide Uttar Pradesh Act XVI of 1978, s. 3]

Section 3, The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Act 10 of 1955).

Cross-references

Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.

This section refers to

  1. Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act s. 3 Establishment of corresponding new banks and business thereof
  2. Essential Commodities Act s. 3 Powers to control production, supply, distribution, etc., of essential commodities

Referred to by 16

  1. s. 4 Imposition of duties on State Governments, etc
  2. s. 5 Delegation of powers
  3. s. 6 Effect of orders inconsistent with other enactments
  4. s. 6A Confiscation of essential commodity
  5. s. 6C Appeal
  6. s. 6E Bar of jurisdiction in certain cases
  7. s. 7 Penalties
  8. s. 7A Power of Central Government to recover certain amounts as arrears of land revenue
  9. s. 8 Attempts and abetment
  10. s. 9 False statement
  11. s. 10 Offences by companies
  12. s. 12 Special provision regarding fine

and 4 more

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

  1. The State of Uttar Pradesh Sugar Industry and Cane Development Department through Its Secretary vs The Basti Sugar Mills Company Ltd. through Its General Manager

    Supreme Court of India 09 Dec 2020 Binding (Supreme Court Constitution Bench) Reportable

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    By virtue of Entries 33 and 34 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, both the Central Government and the State Government possess concurrent power to fix the price of sugarcane. The Central Government, having exercised its power and fixed the 'minimum price' of sugarcane under the Essential Commodities Act 1955, prevents the State Government from fixing the 'minimum price'. However, it is open to the State Government to fix the 'advised price' (remunerative price) for sugarcane which shall always be higher than the 'minimum price' fixed by the Central Government. Section 16 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act 1953 is not repugnant to Section 3(2)(c) of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 and Clause 3 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order 1966 because the price fixed by the Central Government is the 'minimum price' and the price fixed by the State Government is the 'advised price' which is always higher than the 'minimum price', and therefore there is no conflict. Repugnancy would arise only if the 'advised price' fixed by the State Government is lower than the 'minimum price' fixed by the Central Government, in which case the Central 'minimum price' would prevail.

    On this section: Provides Central Government power to fix prices of essential commodities. The Bench distinguished between Central power to fix minimum price and State power to fix advised price, concluding that both can coexist without conflict if advised price exceeds minimum price.

    Read the full order on eCourts India

  2. U. P. Cane Union Federation LTD vs Satyajeet Singh Majithia

    Supreme Court of India 09 Dec 2020 Binding (SC) Reportable

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    Both Central Government and State Government have concurrent legislative power to fix prices of sugarcane under Entry 33 and Entry 34 of List III of Seventh Schedule of Constitution. Central Government exercises this power by fixing 'minimum price' while State Government exercises concurrent power by fixing 'State Advised Price' or 'remunerative price' which is always higher than Central minimum price. The two regimes operate without repugnancy under Article 254 as they are complementary and non-conflicting. Section 16 of U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 is valid and not repugnant to Section 3(2)(c) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or Clause 3 of Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 when State Advised Price is fixed higher than Central minimum price.

    On this section: Central Government's power to fix price of essential commodities (sugarcane being essential commodity); raises repugnancy issue with State law

    Read the full order on eCourts India

  3. Shahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. Throuhg Its Chairman Shri Sukhdev Singh vs The Basti Sugar Mills Company Ltd. through Its Secretary

    Supreme Court of India 09 Dec 2020 Binding (Supreme Court Constitution Bench)

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    By virtue of Entries 33 and 34 of List III of the seventh Schedule of the Constitution, both the Central Government and State Government have concurrent power to fix the price of sugarcane. The Central Government fixes the minimum price, and the State Government may fix an advised price provided it is always higher than the minimum price fixed by the Centre. Section 16 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation Of Supply And Purchase) Act, 1953, is not repugnant to Section 3(2)(c) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and Clause 3 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, because they operate in a complementary manner at different price levels. The State Advised Price is valid and not void under Article 254 of the Constitution so long as it remains higher than the Central Minimum Support Price.

    On this section: Central provision enabling fixing of maximum and minimum prices; applied to determine if Central minimum price under this act prevails over State advised price

    Read the full order on eCourts India

  4. U. P. Cane Union Federation LTD vs S. K. Kanoria

    Supreme Court of India 09 Dec 2020 Binding (Supreme Court Five-Judge Constitutional Bench)

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    By virtue of Entries 33 and 34 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, both the Central Government and the State Government possess concurrent legislative power to fix the price of sugarcane. The Central Government may fix the 'minimum price' of sugarcane, while the State Government may fix the 'advised price' of sugarcane which shall always be higher than the 'minimum price' fixed by the Central Government. Section 16 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 is not repugnant to Section 3(2)(c) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Clause 3 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 because the two price levels operate concurrently without conflict when the State advised price remains above the Central minimum price. Conflict would arise only if the State's advised price falls below the Central minimum price, in which case the Central price would prevail under Article 254 of the Constitution.

    On this section: Empowers Central Government to fix prices of essential commodities; potential conflict point with State action

    Read the full order on eCourts India

  5. Tikaula Sugar Mills Ltd. through Its Director, Shri R. K. Jain vs The State of Uttar Pradesh Sugar Industry and Cane Development Department through Its Principal Secretary

    Supreme Court of India 09 Dec 2020 Binding (Supreme Court Five-Judge Constitution Bench)

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    By virtue of Entries 33 and 34 of List III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule, both the Central Government and State Government have concurrent power to fix sugarcane prices. The Central Government exercises this power by fixing the minimum price, while the State Government exercises this power by fixing the State Advised Price, which must always be higher than the Central minimum price. Section 16 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 confers valid power upon the State Government to fix remunerative/advised price at which sugarcane can be bought or sold. This provision is not repugnant to Section 3(2)(c) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or Clause 3 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, because there is no conflict when State Advised Price exceeds the Central Minimum Price. The State Advised Price remains constitutionally valid under Article 254 so long as it is higher than the Central Minimum Price. Only if the State Advised Price falls below the Central Minimum Price would the Central price prevail and render the State provision void.

    On this section: Grants Centre power to control production, supply and distribution and fix prices of essential commodities; critical to determining if State action violates Central authority

    Read the full order on eCourts India

  6. Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. vs State of U. P.

    Supreme Court of India 09 Dec 2020 Binding (Supreme Court Constitution Bench)

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    Both the Central Government and State Government possess concurrent legislative power under Articles 246 and 254 read with Schedule VII List III Entries 33 and 34 of the Constitution of India to fix the price of sugarcane. The Central Government may fix the Minimum Price (MSP) while the State Government may fix the Advised Price (SAP), provided that the Advised Price fixed by the State is always higher than the Minimum Price fixed by the Central Government. The Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 issued under Section 16 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 confers power upon the State Government to fix remunerative/advised price at which sugarcane can be bought or sold, which shall always be higher than the minimum price fixed by the Central Government. There is no repugnancy between Section 16 of the U.P. Act, 1953 and Section 3(2)(c) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or Clause 3 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, as the two prices operate in different fields - minimum price is the floor below which no transaction can occur, and advised price is an incentive above it. The State legislation does not become void under Article 254 so long as the advised price remains higher than the minimum price. Only if the State fixes a price lower than the Central minimum price would the provisions of the Central enactments prevail and the State enactment to that extent become void.

    On this section: Provides Central Government power to issue orders regarding essential commodities; potential conflict with State legislation analyzed

    Read the full order on eCourts India

  7. Co. Operative Cane Development Union Limited vs Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.

    Supreme Court of India 09 Dec 2020 Binding (SC) Reportable

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    Both the Centre and State Governments possess concurrent power to regulate and fix the price of sugarcane under Entry 33, List III of the Seventh Schedule. However, once the Centre has fixed the minimum price of sugarcane under the Essential Commodities Act and Sugarcane Control Order, the State Government cannot fix a minimum price that conflicts with it. The State is permitted to fix an advised/remunerative price which must always be higher than the Central minimum price. Section 16 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 is constitutionally valid to this extent. The State-fixed advised price does not violate Article 254 of the Constitution so long as it does not fall below the Central minimum price. The doctrine of repugnancy applies only when State law prescribes a conflicting or lower standard than Central law; mere coexistence of different price levels (minimum vs. advised) does not constitute repugnancy.

    On this section: Central Government power to fix maximum and minimum prices of essential commodities. Court applied this to hold that Centre has fixed minimum price for sugarcane, and State power to fix advised price does not conflict if it exceeds minimum price.

    Read the full order on eCourts India

  8. State of U. P. vs S. K. Kanoria

    Supreme Court of India 09 Dec 2020 Binding (SC) - Five-Judge Constitution Bench decision on constitutional question Reportable

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    Both the Central Government and State Government have concurrent power to fix sugarcane prices under Article 246 read with Schedule VII List III Entry 33 of the Constitution. The Central Government having exercised power to fix the minimum price, the State Government cannot fix the minimum price but can fix an advised price (remunerative price) which must always be higher than the minimum price fixed by the Central Government. Where the State Advised Price is higher than the Central minimum price, no repugnancy exists under Article 254, and the State-fixed advised price is constitutionally valid. Conflict under Article 254 arises only when the State advised price is lower than the Central minimum price, in which case the Central minimum price would prevail.

    On this section: Testing whether Central authority given under this provision is incompatible with State price-fixing authority

    Read the full order on eCourts India

  9. Avinash Chandra Vaish vs The State of Uttar Pradesh

    Supreme Court of India 04 Sep 2019 Binding (SC) Reportable (2019) 9 SCC 1

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    When a special statute like the Legal Metrology Act 2009 contains a non obstante clause and exclusionary provision (Section 51), it excludes only those provisions of the general statute (IPC) which specifically relate to the subject matter covered by the special statute. Offences under the general statute which are not covered by the special statute remain prosecutable even when the facts also constitute an offence under the special statute. The exclusion applies only to Chapter XIII IPC (Sections 264-267) relating to weights and measures, not to offences of cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy or common intention which are not covered by the Legal Metrology Act 2009. An accused can be prosecuted under either or both statutes but cannot be punished twice for the same offence.

    On this section: Offences relating to essential commodities; cited in FIR but not primary focus of judgment

    Read the full order on eCourts India

  10. The State of Uttar Pradesh Secretary Ministry of Home Govt. of U. P vs Aman Mittal

    Supreme Court of India 04 Sep 2019 Binding (SC) Reportable Reportable

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    Where a special statute provides for specific offences relating to a particular subject matter and contains an overriding clause, the special statute excludes the application of corresponding provisions of a general statute only insofar as they relate to the specific subject matter covered by the special statute. Offences under the general statute that are not covered by the special statute remain prosecutable even if the facts also constitute an offence under the special statute, provided the offender is not punished twice for the same offence. In the context of the Legal Metrology Act 2009, Section 51 excludes only Chapter XIII IPC offences relating to weights and measures, not all IPC offences. Offences of cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy and common intention remain prosecutable under IPC as they are not covered by the Legal Metrology Act.

    On this section: Sections 3 and 7 relate to offences under Essential Commodities Act. Court examined whether this Act also has overriding effect similar to Legal Metrology Act.

    Read the full order on eCourts India

  11. Union of India Etc Etc vs Johnson & Smith Co. Etc Etc

    Supreme Court of India 21 Oct 2016 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable (2016) 10 SCC 1

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    The yearly prescription of norms under Paragraph 7 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995 is a discretionary exercise dependent upon exigencies of the situation rather than a mandatory annual ritual. Where the Central Government has satisfactorily maintained a fine balance between consumer affordability and manufacturer profitability, and where the antecedent expert committee materials, though subject to lesser judicial scrutiny, demonstrate application of mind and rational consideration of available data despite industry non-cooperation, the notifications fixing retail and ceiling prices of formulations cannot be invalidated on grounds of mechanical re-notification or absence of norms for cost of packing material that has historically not been prescribed and caused no demonstrated prejudice.

    On this section: Drugs are essential commodities requiring price control in public interest for equitable distribution and fair pricing

    Read the full order on eCourts India

  12. The State Rep. by Inspector of Police Q Branch Cid Thoothukudi vs Mariya Anton Vijay

    Supreme Court of India 01 Jul 2015 Binding (SC) Reportable

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash FIR/charge sheet should be exercised very sparingly and only in the rarest of rare cases where the allegations do not prima facie constitute any offence, or are absurd and inherently improbable, or where there is an express legal bar to proceedings. At the charge sheet stage, the High Court cannot appreciate factual materials and draw inferences as if deciding an appellate case. The High Court must confine itself to examining whether prima facie case is made out without going into reliability or genuineness of allegations. Factual questions regarding possession of arms, their nature, authorization, and whether they form part of ordinary armament of vessel under Section 45(a) of Arms Act can only be decided through full trial on merits with evidence from both parties, not at the threshold stage of charge sheet examination. The burden of proving exemption under Section 45(a) lies on the accused person, and such exemption applies only to arms forming part of ordinary armament or equipment of the vessel, not to all arms carried on the vessel.

    On this section: Provisions relate to regulation of supply and distribution of essential commodities. Control Order 2005 issued under this Act regulates diesel supply. The Court upheld charges under this Act for two accused persons for alleged violation of Control Order.

    Read the full order on eCourts India

  13. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories LTD vs Secretary, Govt. of India

    Supreme Court of India 21 Oct 2016 Binding (Supreme Court) - Landmark Precedent on Scope of Judicial Review in Regu Reportable

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    The Central Government's notifications prescribing and re-notifying norms for conversion cost, packing charges and process loss of raw materials under Paragraph 7 of the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995 were issued after due application of mind based on expert committee recommendations which examined available material, even though the industry failed to cooperate in providing data. The requirement to prescribe norms 'every year' is discretionary and not mandatory, and such prescription is warranted only when circumstances necessitate change. The re-notification of same norms without change is permissible when justified by circumstances. The price of formulations can be fixed without prescribing the norm for cost of packing material when industry is satisfied with actuals, and formulations can be priced without first fixing the bulk drug price when formulation contains unscheduled drugs. The scope of judicial review of expert committee recommendations in price fixation matters is limited to checking whether completely erroneous principles were applied, not re-examining the merits of expert conclusions.

    On this section: Court noted that drugs are essential commodities under the Act, hence price control is within Central Government's power; the purpose is to ensure availability at fair prices in public interest, not to benefit manufacturers

    Read the full order on eCourts India

  14. Swastik Mahalaxmi Sortex Industries through Abhishek Tayal vs Madhya Pradesh State Police Station-dehat

    DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT SHIVPURI MP 19 Dec 2024 Persuasive (Other HC)

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    An order refusing interim custody of property is a revisable order, and where no confiscation proceedings by the Collector are pending and the applicant provides prima facie proof of ownership of perishable goods, interim custody should be granted.

    On this section: Base for the criminal charges and seizure.

    Read the full order on eCourts India

  15. State of Maharashtra vs Prabhakar Balwant Ambare

    COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE JD.JMFC.PARANDA 08 Feb 2023 Persuasive (Other HC/Trial Courts)

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    In a summons-case, if the prosecution fails to secure the presence of the accused over a prolonged period despite multiple opportunities, the Magistrate may stop the proceedings under Section 258 CrPC.

    On this section: Substantive offenses for which the accused were charged.

    Read the full order on eCourts India

  16. Kisan Mazdoor Sangathan vs Basti Sugar Mills CO Ltd.

    Supreme Court of India 09 Dec 2020 Binding (Supreme Court Five-Judge Constitutional Bench)

    Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

    Both the Central Government and State Governments have concurrent power under Entry 33 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to fix prices for sugarcane. The Central Government fixes the 'minimum price' under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. The State Government, by virtue of Section 16 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation Of Supply And Purchase) Act, 1953 read with the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, has the power to fix the 'advised price' (remunerative price) which must always be higher than the Central minimum price. There is no repugnancy between these concurrent powers when the State-fixed advised price is higher than the Central-fixed minimum price. The framework provides rational guidelines and does not constitute arbitrary uncanalised power in violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).

    On this section: Grants power to Central government to control prices of essential commodities; potential conflict with State power analyzed under Article 254; Court resolved by distinguishing minimum price (Central) from advised price (State).

    Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.

Judgments citing this section

These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.

  1. Supreme Court of India 19 May 2022 SCIN010270252020

    … It follows that the two laws viz. sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act and para 21 of the Control Order issued by the Central Government under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, operate on two separate and distinct fields and both are capable of being obeyed. There is no question of any clash between the two laws and the question of repugnancy does not come into play." 26 In the pre-GST regime, the Union had the exclusive power to impose indirect taxes, …

    Read this order on eCourtsIndia

  2. Supreme Court of India 19 May 2022 SCIN010279062020

    … It follows that the two laws viz. sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act and para 21 of the Control Order issued by the Central Government under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, operate on two separate and distinct fields and both are capable of being obeyed. There is no question of any clash between the two laws and the question of repugnancy does not come into play." 26 In the pre-GST regime, the Union had the exclusive power to impose indirect taxes, …

    Read this order on eCourtsIndia

  3. Supreme Court of India 19 May 2022 SCIN010035922021

    … It follows that the two laws viz. sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act and para 21 of the Control Order issued by the Central Government under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, operate on two separate and distinct fields and both are capable of being obeyed. There is no question of any clash between the two laws and the question of repugnancy does not come into play." 26 In the pre-GST regime, the Union had the exclusive power to impose indirect taxes, …

    Read this order on eCourtsIndia

Made under this section, and citing it

40 instruments state that it was made under this provision — the power to make it comes from here, so a change to any of them changes what this section requires in practice. Newest first.

All subordinate legislation

Questions about Section 3

What have the courts held on Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act?

The State of Uttar Pradesh Sugar Industry and Cane Development Department through Its Secretary vs The Basti Sugar Mills Company Ltd. through Its General Manager (09 Dec 2020) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Provides Central Government power to fix prices of essential commodities. The Bench distinguished between Central power to fix minimum price and State power to fix advised price, concluding that both can coexist without conflict if advised price exceeds minimum price. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 14 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2015 to 2024.

How do I find court cases under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act?

In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Essential Commodities Act 3, section 3 Essential Commodities Act, section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. People searching for it also type essential commodities act 3 and 7 and essential commodities act 3/7. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with The State of Uttar Pradesh Sugar Industry and Cane Development Department through Its Secretary vs The Basti Sugar Mills Company Ltd. through Its General Manager (09 Dec 2020).

What should I read with Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, and has it changed?

Its own text turns on Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 3 (Establishment of corresponding new banks and business thereof), Essential Commodities Act 3 (Powers to control production, supply, distribution, etc., of essential commodities), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 16 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. The rules and notifications made under it are where it actually bites, and there are 40: most recently Department of Pharmaceuticals, 11th amendment SO 2165 E (2023), then Department of Pharmaceuticals, 12th amendment SO 2324 E (2023), and 38 more.

When did Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act come into force?

Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, cited as Essential Commodities Act 3, came into force on 01 Apr 1955, having been enacted on 01 Apr 1955. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.

Other sections of this Act

Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.