1. Application for registration as coir exporter rejected for failure to meet quantitative and financial criteria — Challenge to rules under Coir Industry Act, 1953. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1958 Supreme(SC) 168
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
11th December, 1958.
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., S.K. DAS, P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, AND M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.
P.V. Sivarajan, Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India and another, Respondents.
Petition No. 121 of 1958.
Advocates Appeared
M/s. G. B. Pai and Sardar Bahadur, Advocates, for Petitioner; Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India and Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate, (Mr. T. M. Sen, Advocate, with them), for Respondents.
Advocates:
B.SEN, G.B.PAI, M.C.SETALVAD, SARDAR BAHADUR SAHARYA, T.M.SEN
B.SEN, G.B.PAI, M.C.SETALVAD, SARDAR BAHADUR SAHARYA, T.M.SEN
Quantitative tests for exporter registration are valid if they serve a public interest and are based on a rational classification to prevent trade malpractices, constituting a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) and not violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Coir Industry Act, 1953 - Sections 10 and 26 - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 19 - Registration and licensing of exporters - Quantitative test for registration - Validity of rules - The Act empowers the Central Government to make rules for the registration of manufacturers and the grant of licenses. The introduction of a quantitative test for registration of exporters is not inconsistent with the Act, as the rule-making authority is not bound by the recommendations of an ad-hoc committee and has the discretion to frame rules it regards as appropriate for regulating trade. (Para 5)
(B) Constitution of India - Article 19 - Right to trade - Reasonable restrictions - Regulation of trade in the public interest is permissible under Article 19(6). The adoption of a quantitative test to control an industry for the national good does not violate fundamental rights, even if it causes hardship to small traders who are unable to satisfy the regulatory requirements. (Para 7)
(C) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Equality - Rational classification - Classification of traders based on a quantitative test is rational and founded on an intelligible differentia. The objective of ensuring exporters have the prescribed minimum capacity to prevent malpractices, such as non-fulfillment of contracts and supply of inferior goods, has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. Such rules do not establish a monopoly, particularly when exemptions are provided for cooperative societies to encourage small traders. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
A petitioner, an exporter of coir products, challenged the rejection of his application for registration as an established exporter. The rejection was based on the failure to produce a financial status certificate and evidence of meeting the minimum export quantity. The petitioner filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the rules prescribing these quantitative tests, alleging they were ultra vires the parent Act and violated fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the rules were within the powers conferred by the Act and did not violate the Constitution. The quantitative test was a rational means to ensure the quality and reliability of exports and to protect the national economy.
Issues: Whether the rules prescribing a quantitative test for the registration of exporters were ultra vires the Coir Industry Act, 1953, and whether they violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rule-making authority has the discretion to determine the most expedient test for regulating trade in the public interest. A reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) remains valid even if it causes hardship to some. Furthermore, a classification based on capacity is rational if it has a direct nexus with the objective of eliminating trade malpractices.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Rules prescribing quantitative tests for registration are ultra vires the Act and violate fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. Regulation of coir industry in public interest justifies quantitative tests to prevent malpractices; such classification is rational and does not create an illegal monopoly. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 )
4. Reasonable regulatory rules introduced in public interest do not violate Article 19(g) despite causing hardship, nor Article 14 if based on intelligible differentia. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Petition dismissed with costs. (Para 9 )
6. Is the rule-making authority bound to adopt a qualitative test over a quantitative test for exporter registration if recommended by a committee?
No. Unless the Act specifically prohibits it, the rule-making authority has the discretion to determine which test best meets the public interest and is most expedient for controlling the industry; committee recommendations are not binding on the government. (Para 5 )
7. Does a regulatory rule violate Article 19(g) if it causes hardship to small traders who cannot meet the prescribed criteria?
No. If the regulation is reasonable and justified in the public interest under Article 19(6), the fact that some traders are unable to satisfy the requirements does not render the regulation invalid. (Para 7 )
8. Does the use of a quantitative test to distinguish between large and small-scale exporters violate Article 14?
No, provided the classification is based on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object, such as ensuring exporters have the capacity to fulfill contracts and prevent malpractices. (Para 8 )
Judgment
P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : The petitioner has been doing business as an exporter of coir products to foreign countries for the last twenty years. On July 4, 1958, he applied to respondent 2, the Chairman, Coir Board, Ernakulam, requesting that he should be registered as an established exporter. This application was accompanied by an income-tax clearance certificate and attested copies of bills of lading. Respondent 2 declined to register the petitioner on the ground that his application was defective inasmuch as the requisite certificate regarding his financial status had not been produced and no evidence had been given to show that he had exported the minimum quantity required (500 Cwts.). The petitioner was told that unless he complied with the requirements asked for within seven days his application would be rejected without further notice. The petitioner found that he could not comply with the directions issued by respondent 2 and so it became impossible for the petitioner to get registration and licence applied for by him. That is why he filed the present petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution and prayed for the issue of a writ or order in the nature of mandamus to direct the second respondent to grant the petitioner registration and licence as applied for by him and to prohibit or restrain the said respondent from acting on, or implementing, the rules issued under the Coir Industry Act 1953 by issue of a writ of certiorari, prohibition or such other writ or order appropriate to protect his rights. The petitioner also prayed that "if found necessary" the said rules should be declared to be ultra vires the powers of the Central Government and invalid being in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Arts, 14 and 19 of the Constitution. The Union of India has been impleaded as respondent 1 to the petition.
2. Before dealing with the points raised by the petition it would be necessary to refer briefly to the provisions of the Coir Industry Act, 1953 (45 of 1953), hereinafter called the Act, and the rules framed under it in 1958. This Act was enacted by the Parliament because it was thought expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the coir industry. (S. 2). Section 4 of the Act provides for the establishment and constitution of the Coir Board and S. 10 enumerates its functions and duties. Under S. 10(1) it shall be the duty of the Board to promote by such measures as it thinks fit the development under the control of the Central Government of the coir industry. Sub-section (2) enumerates the measures which the Board may take with the object of developing the coir industry without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-s. (1). Amongst the measures thus enumerated, sub-s. (2)(b) refers to the regulation under the supervision of the Central Government of the production of husks, coir yarn and coir products by registering coir spindles and looms for manufacturing coir products, as also manufacturers of coir products, licensing exporters of coir, coir yarn and coir products and taking such other appropriate steps as may be prescribed. Sub-section (2)(g) refers to the promotion of co-operative organisation among producers of husks coir fibre and coir yarn and manufacturers if coir Products, and sub-s. (2)(i) refers to the licensing of retting places and warehouses and otherwise regulating the stocking and sale of coir fibre, coir yarn and coir products both for internal market and for exports Section 26(1) confers on the Central Government power to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act subjects to the condition of previous publication. Sub-section (2) enumerates the matters in respect of which rules may be made, in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by sub-s. (1). Sub-section (2)(k) refers inter alia to the registration of manufactures of coir products and the conditions for such registration and the grant or
