HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
D. N. Sinha
T. D. KUMAR AND BROS. PRIVATE LTD. - Appellant
Versus
IRON AND STEEL CONTROLLER AND ORS. - Respondent
Matter 151 Of 1958
Decided On : AUGUST 26, 1960
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - ARTICLE 19 (1) (G) - RIGHT TO CARRY ON BUSINESS - WHETHER A COMPANY CAN CLAIM THIS RIGHT - IRON AND STEEL (CONTROL) ORDER, 1956 - CLAUSE 8 - POWER TO REVOKE PERMITS - WHETHER NAKED AND ARBITRARY - WHETHER AN UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION ON THE RIGHT TO CARRY ON BUSINESS - ARTICLE 19 (5) - REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS - WHETHER CLAUSE 8 SAVED BY ARTICLE 19 (5).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a company incorporated in India, challenged the validity of Clause 8 of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956, which gave the Controller power to revoke permits issued under the Order. The petitioner argued that this power was naked and arbitrary and constituted an unreasonable restriction on its fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Clause 8 of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956, was void as it was a naked and arbitrary power and constituted an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right of the petitioner to carry on its business under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether a company can claim the fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution? 2. Whether Clause 8 of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956, is a naked and arbitrary power? 3. Whether Clause 8 of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956, is an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to carry on business? 4. Whether Clause 8 of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956, is saved by Article 19 (5) of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A company can claim the fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. 2. Clause 8 of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956, is a naked and arbitrary power as it gives the Controller absolute power to revoke permits without any restriction or guidance. 3. Clause 8 of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956, is an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to carry on business as it does not strike a proper balance between the freedom guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) and the special control permitted by Clause 6 of Article 19. 4. Clause 8 of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956, is not saved by Article 19 (5) of the Constitution as it is not a reasonable restriction.
Final Decision: The Court issued a writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside the orders dated 28th March, 1957 and 7th May, 1958, mentioned above, so far as the petitioner is concerned. The Court also issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the same.
( 1 ) THE facts in this case are shortly as follows: The petitioner company carries on business in iron and steel materials. It is a well known business house in Calcutta, and has been carrying on business since 1940, having been incorporated as a company in 1923. Ever since the inception of statutory control of the distribution of Iron and Steel in 1941, the petitioner company has been registered as a stock-holder under the Iron and Steel Control Orders. The petitioner company had also been appointed as a 'controlled Stockholder', but in this application we are not concerned with that aspect of the matter. In this case we are concerned with events which occurred in 1957. At that time, the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956, promulgated in exercise of powers conferred by the Central Government by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was in operation. This order superseded the Iron and Steel (Control of Production and Distribution) Order, 1941 and the Iron and Steel (Scrap Control) Order, 1943. Before I proceed further, it is necessary to consider some of the provisions of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'control Order' ). Under Clause 2, the term, 'controlled source' includes a 'producer' which term means a person carrying on the business of manufacturing iron and steel. The term 'registered producer' means a producer who is registered as such by the Controller. The term 'controller' means a person appointed as Iron and Steel Controller by the Central Government and includes any person exercising, upon authorisation by the Central Government, all or any of the powers of the Iron and Steel Controller. A 'controlled stockholder' means a stockholder appointed by the Controller to hold stocks of iron and steel under such terms and conditions as he may prescribe from time to time. The term, 'stockholder' means a person holding stocks of iron or steel for sale who is registered as a stockholder by the Controller. Clause 4 of the Control Order lays down that no person shall acquire or agree to acquire any iron or steel from a producer or stockholder except under the authority of and in accordance with, the conditions contained in a quota certificate or permit issued by the Controller Or under the authority of and in accordance with the conditions contained or incorporated in a general or special written order of the Controller. Clause 5 of the Control Order provides that no person who acquires iron or steel under Clause 4, or no producer shall dispose of or agree to dispose of any iron or steel except in accordance with the conditions contained or incorporated in, a special or general written order of the Controller. Clause 8 of the Control Order is important and must be set out:"surrender of revoked authorities:-- Where any quota certificate, permit or written order, referred to in Clause 4 or 5 is revoked by the authority which issued it, the person to whom it was issued shall forthwith return it to the authority which issued it. "
( 2 ) THE provisions of Clause 13 are important and are set out below:"the Controller may, where he is satisfied that such action is necessary in order to co-ordinate the production of iron or steel with the demands for iron or steel which have arisen or are likely to arise under authorisations to acquire duly issued under this part- (a) prohibit, with effect from such date as he may specify, the manufacture by any producer of iron or steel of any of the categories specified in the Schedule to this Order, otherwise than in accordance with any general or special directions issued by the Controller; (b) require, with effect from such date and with reference to such periods as the Controller may specify, any producer to obtain approval to his programme of manufacture of iron or steel of any of the categories specified in the Schedule to this Order; (c) require, with effect from such date as the Controller may specify, any producer to ma
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India
Sewpujanrai Indrasanrai Ltd. v. Collector of Customs
Okara Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Punjab
State of Bombay v. R.M.D.Chamarbaugwalia
Dwarka Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Chintamanrao v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Raman and Raman Ltd. v. State of Madras
Fedco (India) Ltd. v. S.N.Bilgrami
Liberty Cinema v. Commissioner of Corporation, Calcutta
Harishankar Bagla v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.