B.N.KIRPAL, J.

(1) SPECIAL leave granted.

(2) THE only contention raised in these cases is with regard to the legislative competence of the Parliament to enact section 45-S of the Reserve Bank of India Act. The main ground in this regard which is urged by the learned counsel for the appellants is that in respect of persons who are registered under the Money Lenders Acts passed by the various states, their business cannot be brought to an end by virtue of section 45-S. It is contended that the Acts have been passed in exercise of the powers conferred on the state Legislatures under entry 30 of list II and inherent in the right of carrying on the business of money lending is the option to take money on deposit. The enactment of section 45-S now prevents an unincorporated body or person from accepting a deposit even though the person may be a registered money lender.

(3) IN our opinion, this question is no longer res integra. In Kanta Mehta v. Union of India and Others [1987 (62) Company Cases 769] the High Court of Delhi considered such a contention which had been raised with regard to the validity of section 45-S which had been incorporated at tha