Section 6(1) of the Gold Control Act, 1968 is not unconstitutional for conferring a naked power on the Administrator to call for the return of the books from any pawner without there being any indication in the provision as to who amongst them could be called to furnish accounts, as the power is guided by the public interest and the objectives of the Act.

BERI, J.

( 1 ) THE validitv of the Gold Control Act. 1968 (Act No. 45 1968) was challenged by means of a group of 150 writ petitions before a learned Single Judge of this Court on diverse grounds. These petitions were resisted by the Union of India and the learned Single Judge by his judgment dated the 4th of December. 1969 in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Harakchand Ratan-chand Banthia v. Union of india. AIR 1970 SC 1453 rebelled all attacks except one asainst Section 6 (1) of the Act and held that this part alone was unconstitutional because no guideline was provided therein. Union of India has preferred three appeals against that judgment which can be disposed of together.

( 2 ) MR. Vvas, learned counsel for the appellants, invited our attention to Badri prasad v. Collector, Central Excise. AIR 1972 SC 1170 a decision which was rendered subseauent to the decision challenged in these appeals and urged that section 6 was specifically challenged in this case and their Lordships in Para 17 of the iudgment have held it to be valid. On this authority it was contended that section 6 has been declared not to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. What their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down is the law for the land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India- added the learned counsel He further urged that even if a particular aspect of attack was not made against the validity of a Provision of law. but the provision was considered and declared by the supreme Court to be valid it cannot be questioned before the High Court from another angle and he placed reliance on Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of U P. AIR 1968 All 100 at p. 106 and Ballabhdas Mathuradas Lakhani v. Municipal Committee malkapur, AIR 1970 SC 1002 at p. 1003.

( 3 ) MR. D. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents, urged that Section 6 has been declared to be invalid by the learned Single Judge on the ground that it confers a naked power on the Administrator to call for the return of the books from any pawner without there being any indication in the provision as to who amongst them could be called to furnish accounts. This attack was not considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and is still open to challenge in these appeals. His next submission was that out of 150 petitions appeals have been oreferred only in three and therefore, the law declared by the learned Single Judge regarding Section 6 will be binding in the State of Raiasthan against the Union of india.

( 4 ) IT will be appropriate at this stage to recall Section 6. which is tha target of attack. It reads.-

"6. Power of Administrator to call for returns as to receipt of sale of hypo-thecated gold. (1) The Administrator may, if he is of opinion that it is necessary in the public interest so to do. require any person who lends or advances monev on the hypothecation, pledge, mortgage or charge of any article or ornament to make to him in such form, and within such time as may be specified a return as to the receipt, deliverv or sale of such article or ornament and as to the persons from whom they were received or as the case may be, to whom thev were delivered or sold. (2) The Administrator may. by order authorise any Gold control Officer to examine the accounts relating to the receipt, deliverv or sale of any sold, of any person who advances any monev on the hypo-thecation, pledge, mortgage or charge of any article or ornament and if any gold is found in the possession of such person which is not entered in such accounts or which is in excess of the quantity shown in such accounts and which is not otherwise accounted for to the satisfaction of such officer, such gold shall be deemed to be in the possession of such person in contravention of the provisions of the Act. "

Their Lordships of the Supreme Court examined whether the demand of a return under Section 6 (1) was a reasonable restriction under Article 19. They held that asking for the return in terms