SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(Raj) 1923

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Govind Mathur, J.
Teja Ram and Another - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3232 of 2006.
Decided On : 6-08-2007

The fundamental right to practice any profession or occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6), and any restriction must be based on existing law and in the interest of the general public.

Headnote:

Hotel Canvassers - Right to Practice Profession - Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India - Article 19(6)

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought a writ to restrain the authorities from interfering with their work as Hotel Canvassers, citing violation of their fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the ban on Hotel Canvassers' work was illegal and violated their fundamental right to practice any profession or occupation as enshrined in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Issues: The main issue was whether the ban on Hotel Canvassers' work by the authorities was in violation of their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the ban on Hotel Canvassers' work was not justified under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India, as it was not based on any existing law or reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition for writ, declaring the ban on Hotel Canvassers' work as illegal, and directed the authorities to regulate their work by providing reasonable guidelines and restrictions within the sphere of Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

1. - According to the petitioners the District Administration of District Sirohi and City Administrative Authorities of Town Mount Abu are not permitting them to work as "Hotel Canvassers", therefore, by this petition for writ a direction is sought to restrain the respondents from interfering with lawful working of the petitioners as "Hotel Canvassers".

2. The Hill Station of Mount Abu is famous for its scenic beauty and also for salubrious environment. Being only Hill Station of Rajasthan and nearby State of Gujarat, the town is also having huge influx of tourists and good number of people earn their bread at Mount Abu also by working as Hotel Canvassers. On receiving certain complaints, the District Administration of Sirohi and City Administrative authorities of Mount Abu without passing any order in writing stopped working of Hotel Canvassers. The petitioners, who were working as Hotel Canvassers have given challenge to the act of the respondents being in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India that ensures all citizens of the country a fundamental right to practice any profession or to carry any occupation, trade or business.

3. The stand of the respondents in reply to the writ petition is that the petitioners and certain other persons in the name of Hotel Canvassers were working as agents for various hotels and conduct of these persons led to various untoward situation affecting law and order and that caused immense injury to the peace and tranquility of the town, thus, a conscious decision was taken to stop working of the Hotel Canvassers and that was done within the permissible limits given in Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India.

4. Heard counsel for the parties.

5. At the threshold it is pertinent to note that counsel appearing for various respondents failed to point out any law restricting or regulating working of "Hotel Canvassers" who are nothing but agents of different hotels hired to convince the tourists/customers to avail accommodation in a specific hotel.

6. The sole emphasis of the respondents is that unruly conduct of the Hotel Canvassers resulted into law and order problem causing injury to the peace of town, therefore, restriction impugned was imposed.

7. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India ensures a valuable fundamental right to every citizen of India to practice any profession subject to reasonable restrictions given in Article 19(6) of the Constitution and genesis of it can well be traced in universal declaration of human rights. Article 23 of which provides for right to work and have free choice of employment to every human being. No doubt that by reasonable restrictions the State can regulate the fundamental as well as human right referred above but for that purpose powers have to be exercised within the sphere of clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, that reads as follows:-

"Article 19(6)Nothing in sub-clause(g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub-clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to,

(i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or

(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise."

8. The fundamental rights enshrined under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India in view of clause (6) referred above are not absolute or uncontrolled but subject to reasonable restrictions to avoid anarchy and disorder. The possession of enjoyment of all










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top