S.N.P.Singh, J.

1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by "The Bihar State Bullion Merchants Association" and twenty-one members of the said Association, who are licensed dealers in gold. The only question raised in the application is the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (Act No. 45 of 1968).

2. The Gold (Control) Act, hereinafter called "the Act", was published in the Extraordinary issue dated the 1st of September. 1968, of the Gazette of India. Before the Act had come into force the Gold (Control) Ordinance, 1968 (No. 6 of 1968) had been promulgated by the President of the Republic of India on the 29th of June, 1968. Prior to the promulgation of the Ordinance the business in gold was controlled by the Gold Control Rules contained in Part XII-A of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. The provisions of Part XIIA of the Defence of India Rules were repealed by the Ordinance from the date of its commencement subject to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

3. Subsequent to the filing of the present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court in the case of Harakchand Ratan-chand Banthia V/s. Union of India. AIR 1970 SC 1453 considered the question whether the Act is constitutionally valid and held that the provisions contained in Sections 5(2) (b), 27(2) (d), 27(6), 32, 46, 88 and 100 are invalid. It further held that the above provisions in the Act, which are invalid, are not inextricably bound up with the remaining provisions of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of the Act which were declared invalid could not affect the validity of the Act as a whole.

4. Although in the application the provisions as contained in various sections of the Act have been impugned, Mr. Lal Narayan Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, restricted his argument only with regard to the question of constitutional validity of Sub-section (7) of Sec.16 and Sections 28, 30 and 31 of the Act and Clause (3) of the Gold Control (Identification of Customers) Rules, 1969, hereinafter to be called "the Rules", made by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by Sec.114 read with Sub-section (1) of Sec-tion 100 of the Act. It was urged that the restrictions imposed by the above-mentioned Sections of the Act and Clause (3) of the Rules are unreasonable and not in public interest and as such they are violative of Article 19(1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution of India.

5. As the preamble of the Act reads, it was enacted by Parliament "to provide in the economic and financial interests of the community, for the control of the production, manufacture, supply, distribution, use and possession of, and business in, gold, ornaments and articles of gold and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto". The circumstances and the social and economic background in which the Act was passed were considered by the Supreme Court in Harakchands case, AIR 1970 SC 1453 and the following observations were made:

"It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the impugned Act was passed in order to bring about reduction in the quantity of smuggled gold by rendering smuggling more dangerous and the disposal of smuggled gold in the domestic market more difficult. Even though import of gold had been banned considerable quantities of contraband gold find their way into this country through illegal channels. The Customs Department is in itself not in a position to effectively combat smuggling over the long borders and the coast lines and, therefore, the anti-smuggling measures have to be supplemented by a detailed system of control over internal transactions so as to make the circulation of smuggled gold more difficult, if not impossible. The loss of foreign exchange caused by smuggling of gold was estimated at nearly Rs. 100 crores per year in the post-devaluation period, and Government felt that it was very necessary to r