NARENDRA KUMAR V. UNION OF INDIA ,1960 AIR 430
FACTS:
The appellant entered into a contract of purchase of copper, but the government of india issued the Non-ferrous Metal Control order,1958. The petitioner applied for permits to take delivery of the copper, but the applications were refused.
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and challenging the validity of the order refusing the grant of permit as it infringed Article 14,19(1)(f) and 19(1) (g).
ISSUE:
- Whether the Non-ferrous metal order issued by the government in violation of Article 14 and 19 of the constitution. Section 3 of the Essential commodities Act?
- Whether the control order 1958, is invalid?
- Whether the fixation of the price would also abridge the rights conferred on them by Article 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g) of the constitution?
REFERRED CASE LAW:
- Chintaman Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
The effect of the provisions of the Act, has no reasonable relation to the object in view but is so drastic in scope that it goes much in excess of that object .thus the test of reasonableness was not satisfied.
- Cooverjee Bharucha v. The Excise Commissioner and the chief commissioner, Ajmer:
The nature of the business,is, therefore,an important factor in deciding the reasonableness of the restrictions.
OBSERVATION:
- It is reasonable to think that the makers of the Constitution considered the word restriction “to be sufficiently wide to save laws inconsistent” with Article 19 (1). But when restriction reaches the stage of prohibition special care has to be taken by the court to see the test of reasonableness is satisfied.
- Section 3 of the Act confers on the Central Government power to do anything which is in conflict with the constitution, anything which violates any of the rights conferred by Constitution, that fact alone would be sufficient and unassailable for holding that the section itself is void being ultra vires the Constitution.
- The words “in accordance with the provisions of the articles of the constitution” have to be read by necessary implication in every provision and every law made by the parliament on any day after the constitution came into force.
- It will also be necessary to consider in that connection whether the restraint caused by the law is more than was necessary in the interests of the general public.
DECISION:
- The Court held that the principles in the “Non-ferrous Metal order” do not violate Article 14 and 19. Stated that without the principles, clause 4 of the order is not effective. The Court directed to issue an order restraining the respondents from enforcing clause 4 , so long as the principles specified were not mentioned in the official Gazette and laid before the parliament House. The petition was partly allowed in this case.
- It is urged that the total elimination of the dealer amounting as it will to prohibition of any exercise of the right to carry on trade or to acquire property would therefore be in any case outside the saving provisions of clause 5 and 6 of Article 19.
- Imposition of reasonable restrictions clearly implies that the right of free movement is not entirely destroyed but that parts of the right remain.
- Some fixation of price, being essential to keep price within reasonable limits, must therefore be held to be a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public.
- The dealers and manufacturers are placed in different classes manufacturers are eligible for permits dealers are not. The class differentia have a reasonable connection with the object the legislation. Thus, not violative of Article 14 of the constitution.
As the principles specified in the letter have not been notified in the Gazette, nor laid before house of parliament, and must be stuck down as void