Judgement

RAY, C. J.:- These appeals are by certificate from the judgment D/- 19-11-1973 of the High Court of Kerala.

2. These appeals challenge the validity of the notification dated 26, July, 1973 issued by the State Government under Rule 114 (2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971 hereinafter referred to as the Rules. Rule 114 (2) is as follows:

"If the Central Government or the State Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do for securing the defence of India and civil defence, the efficient conduct of military operations or the maintenance or increase of supplies and services essential to the life of the community or for securing the equitable distribution and availability of any article or thing at fair prices, it may, be order provide for regulating or prohibiting the production, manufacture, supply and distribution, used and consumption of articles or things and trade and commerce therein or for preventing any corrupt practice or abuse of authority in respect of any such matter.

The impugned notification is as follows:

"No. 19768/E2/73/ID Trivandrum

Dated 26th July, 1973.

S.R.O. 474/73:- Whereas use of machinery for the extraction of fibre from coconut husks increased considerably in the districts of Trivandrum, Quilon and Alleppey in recent times;

And whereas mechanisation in the production of such fibre results in very high consumption of coconut husks and the consequent enhancement of the price of such husks;

And whereas due to the very high consumption of conconut husks for the production of fibre by using machinery and the enhancement of the price of such husks, sufficient quantity of such husks are not available at fair prices in the said districts for use in the traditional sector;

And whereas the Government are of opinion that for securing the equitable distribution and availability at fair prices of account husks in the said districts for production of fibre in the traditional sector it is necessary to prohibit the use of a machinery in those districts for the production of such fibre;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Rule (2) of R. 114 of the Defence of India Rules, 1971, the Government hereby prohibit the production of fibre from conconut husks by the use of the machinery in the said districts.

By order of the Governor.

3. The appellants are owners of Small Scale Industrial Units. They employ mechanised process for decortication of retted coconut husks. The main processes involved in the manufacture of coir yarn are these: First is retting of green husks. The green husks are covered with leaves and mud. The retted husks are then pounded or beaten. The fibre and pith then separate. The fibre is extracted, cleaned and dried. Next comes spinning either with the help of ratt or by hand. Ratt is a mechanical contrivance. The final stage is bundling of coir yarn for marketing. Government declared defibring of conconut husks by mechancial means as a small scale industry eligible for financial assistance under the Small Scale Industries Development Scheme. Most of the appellants availed themselves of loans under the Scheme. The appellants alleged in the petitions before the High Court that the cost involved in installing machinary in a proper building for the purpose would range from Rs. 22,000 to Rs. 35,000.

4. The appellants challenged the notification on the ground that the formation of opinion by the State Government for the purpose of exercise of power under sub-rule (2) of the Rule 114 of the Rules is a justiciable issue and that the court should call for the material on which the opinion has been formed and examine the same to find out whether a reasonable man or authority could have come to the same conclusion that in its opinion for securing that in its opinion for securing the equitable distribution and availability of retted husks at fair prices, a regulation or prohibition of the manufacture of fibre from retted husks by mechanical means is necessary. The appel