R. Balakrishnan vs State Of Madras Represented By The ... on 7 September, 1951
16. But both sides argued before us on the footing that there was really no absolute prohibition but there was only a restriction, because Clause 12 (4) has to be read with Clause 33 which gave power to the Textile Commissioner to permit in particular cases the acquisition and installation of new looms. What the petitioners' Counsel urged before us was that there was nothing in Clause 33 to indicate the factors which should be taken into account in the exercise of the Textile Commissioner's discretion. If his discretion is completely unfettered, as was suggested in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State, can it Be said that the provision does not conflict with the right of equal protection conferred by Article 14 Is there not scope for if the clause does not really invite discrimination? Can valuable rights of citizens be left entirely to the arbitrary discretion of the Textile Commissioner? I think that such an arbitrary and unfettered discretion would not amount to a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Article 19(5) and (6). It would be unreasonable to gamble on the reasonableness of the Textile Commissioner, to use the language in an earlier decision of this Court in 'M. B. Namazi v. Dy. Custodian of evacuee property madras',
.