Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)Section 6 in The Bihar Mica Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
State Of Madras vs V.G. Row.Union Of India & State ... on 31 March, 1952
as a whole and in a fair and reasonable manner and should
not be declared void simply because considerations relevant
to those articles are not immediately apparent from its
language. These observations were made in connection with a
pre-Constitution enactment. Even then Subba Rao J. (as he
then was) with whom Sinha C. J. agreed uttered a note of
caution saying that it was not the function of the court to
search for an undisclosed policy in the crevices of the
statute, for by doing so "this court will not only be
finding an excuse to resuscitate an invalid law but also be
encouraging the making of laws by appropriate authorities in
derogation of fundamental rights." Even according to the
majority decision, there must be disclosed in the statute
apparently or otherwise, a policy guiding the exercise of
power conferred thereunder by the concerned authority.
These authorities clearly demonstrate that the fundamental
right of a citizen to carry on trade can be restricted only
by making a law imposing in the interest of the general
public reasonable restrictions on the exercise of such a
right, that such restrictions should not be arbitrary or
excessive or beyond what is required in the interest of the
general public and that an uncontrolled and uncanalized
power conferred on the authority would be an unreasonable
restriction on such right. Though a legislative policy may
be expressed in a statute, it must provide a suitable
machinery for implementing that policy in such a manner that
such implementation does not result in undue or excessive
hardship and arbitrariness. The question whether a
restriction is reasonable or not is clearly a justiciable
concept and it is for the court to come to one conclusion or
the other having regard to the considerations laid down in
State of Madras v. V. G. Row.(1) It is also well established
that where a provision restricts any one of the fundamental
rights it is for the State to establish the reasonableness
of such restriction and for the court to decide in the light
of the circumstances in each case, the policy and the object
of the impugned legislation and the mischief it seeks to
prevent.
Section 25 in The Bihar Mica Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
Kishan Chand Arora vs Commissioner Of Police, Calcutta on 9 December, 1960
In Kishan Chand Arora v.
The Commissioner of Police(2) the majority judgment observed
that in order to decide whether a provision in a pre-
Constitution statute like the one in question there
satisfied the test of constitutionality laid down by Art.
19(1)(g) read with Art. 19(6) the impugned section must be
read
(1) [1960] 2 S.C.R. 609.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 46 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Bihar Mica Act, 1947
The State Of Rajasthan vs Nath Mal And Mitha Mal on 12 March, 1954
In the State of Rajasthan v. Nath Mal(2) clause 25 of the
Rajasthan Foodgrains Control Order, 1949 empowered certain
specified officers to freeze any stocks of foodgrains held
by any person and further provided that such stocks were
liable to be requisitioned or disposed of under orders of
the said authority at the rate fixed for the purpose of
Government procurement. The clause was struck down by this
Court on the ground that while the authorities may fix the
ceiling price at which foodgrains should be sold in the
market by the dealers there was no such limitation on the
power of the Government to acquire the stocks. It would
therefore be open to the Government to requisition the
stocks at a price lower than the ceiling price thus causing
loss to the persons whose stocks are freezed, while at the
same time the Government would be free to sell the same
stocks at a higher price and make profit. No dealer would
therefore be prepared to buy foodgrains at the market price
when he knew that he was exposed to the risk of his stocks
being freezed any moment and the same being requisitioned at
the procurement rate. The clause thus left it entirely to
the discretion of the executive to fix any compensation it
liked. The decision held that clause 25 placed an
unreasonable restriction upon the carrying on of trade or
business, was thus an infringement of the right under Art.
19(1)(g) and was therefore to that extent void. In R.M.
Seshadri 'v. The District Magistrate, Tanjore(3) two
conditions subject to which the appellant was granted a
licence and which compelled a licensee to exhibit in his
cinema theatre at each performance
(1)[1952] S. C. R. 597. (3) [1955] 1 S. C. R. 686.
(2) [1954] S. C. R. 982.