The State Government has the authority to impose age restrictions for the grant and renewal of licenses, certificates, and permits, considering the nature of the job and the safety aspect associated with it.

JUDGMENT

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. - The constitutional validity of Rule 23(c) and 31(5) of the West Bengal Electrical Licensing Rules, 2017 (for short 'the 2017 Rules') is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner no. 1 is an association registered under the Companies Act, 1913. The petitioner nos. 4-10 are claiming to be the electrical supervisors and members of the petitioner no. 1. The State of West Bengal framed the 2017 Rules imposing a restriction in case of renewal of license/certificate of competency and/or permit after a certain age and imposing further restriction upon persons who have crossed a particular age to apply for such certificate and permit. The petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of said rules and have prayed for a declaration that the same is ultra vires the Constitution of India.

3. Mr. Dhar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act') vested various authorities with different power including delegated legislative powers. He further contended that Section 53 of the Act empowers the Central Electricity Authority (for short 'CEA') to take suitable measures for safety. According to Mr. Dhar, the domain of safety falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of CEA under Section 53.

He further contended that the CEA is the ultimate authority in respect of the safety and precaution as would be evident from the use of the expression 'in consultation with the State Government' appearing in Section 53. According to Mr. Dhar when the CEA who has the ultimate authority with regard to safety did not impose any age restriction in the regulation framed under Section 177 of the Act in case of a supervisor to carry on trade/ occupation/ business under Article 19(1)(g) read with Article 21, the State Government being a delegatee of the CEA could not impose any age restriction in this regard in the 2017 Rules. Mr. Dhar submitted that in case of private business or profession the role of State is merely regulatory but the fixation of upper age limit is prohibitory in nature as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of B.P.Sharma vs. Union of India and ors. reported at (2003) 7 SCC 309. He further contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said reported decision held that the freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution should be allowed to be enjoyed without any restriction. He also contended that the judgment in the case of B.P.Sharma (supra) was followed by the Delhi High Court in the case of WG.CRD (Retd.) V.A. Joshi & ors. vs. Union of India & Another reported at 2012 SCC Online Delhi 2477. He next contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Council of Legal Aid & Advice and Ors. vs. Bar Council of India and Anr. reported at (1995) 1 SCC 732 was pleased to strike down the rule inserted by the Bar Council of India prohibiting enrolment of an advocate by fixing an upper age limit.

4. By referring to the matters as specifically provided in Subsection 2 of Section 180, Mr. Dhar contended that such power does not extend to imposing a restriction on upper age limit which falls within the exclusive domain of the CEA. He further submitted that regulation 29 of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010 (for short 'the 2010 Regulations') also did not empower the State to impose such prohibition. He next referred to the nature of the job to be performed by the supervisors as described in the affidavit-in-opposition by the State of West Bengal and submitted that the nature of the job of supervisor also does not justify the prohibition in age. He contended that the right to earn livelihood falls within the expression 'life' under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that liberty means freedom of an individual to carry on his trade, business and profession. He contended that by imposing a restriction on upper age