Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. To say that the notification dated 19 April 1955 was discriminatory and that the discrimination was purposeful and intentional is to say that the notification was issued with an "evil eye." Now it is necessary to remember that after the Advisory Committee was appointed by the State Government under S. 6 of the Act and after that Committee made its report, the State Government appointed an Advisory Board. Not only did the State Government forward the report of the Advisory Committee to the Advisory Board, but it also addressed letters to the employers in the bidi industry asking them to forward to the Advisory Board certified copies of their accounts for the year 1952-53, income-tax statements and sales-tax returns in support of their contentions, details of the price for preparing 1,000 bidis, selling price and wage-rate respectively for each year since 1948, etc., etc. The State Government also forwarded to the Advisory Board a letter received by it from the Chairman of the Nasik-Sinnar-Sangamner Bidi Karkhandar Mandal on the subject of the revision of the rates of minimum wages. After a consideration of all the material which was placed before the Advisory Board by the employers and employees, the Board, consisting, besides the Chairman, of 20 members who were drawn equally from the employers and employees, made a unanimous recommendation to the State Government. The Government accepted the said recommendation and made it the basis of the notification, dated 19 April, 1955. In other words, the notification issued by the State Government on 19 April, 1955, was in terms of the recommendation made unanimously by the Advisory Board consisting of 10 representatives of the employers, 10 representatives of the employees and the Chairman. In these circumstances, the allegation of the petitioners that the notification made purposeful and intentional discrimination appears to be fantastic.

25. This principle would by implication appear to have been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Ram Krishna Dalmia case wherein their lordships, while dealing with a notification of the Government of India regarding the Commission of Inquiry, observed :

"... We feel sure, however, that if this law (meaning thereby the notification issued by the Government regarding the Commission of Inquiry) is administered by the Government 'with an evil eye and an unequal hand' or for an oblique or unworthy purpose, the arms of this Court will belong enough to reach it and to strike down such abuse with a heavy hand."

"... As this Court has said in Matajog Dobey v. H. C. Bhari 'a discretionary power is not necessarily a discriminatory power and that abuse of power is not to be easily assumed where the discretion is vested in the Government and not in a minor official.' We feel sure, however, that if this law is administered by the Government 'with an evil eye and an unequal hand' or for an oblique or unworthy purpose, the arms of this Court will be long enough to reach it and to strike down such abuse with a heavy hand."