Order.- The petitioners in all these writ petitions barring W.P. Nos. 1266 to 1268 of 1972 pray for the same relief. For the purpose of understanding the nature of the relief they have prayed for and the legal consequences thereof, it is necessary to refer to a few facts. The Madras Financiers and Pawn-Brokers Association, and one K. Hansraj filed two writ petitions, W.P. Nos. 2611 and 2612 of 1970 on the file of this Court. In these writ petitions, they prayed for the issue of writs of mandamus restraining the respondents, namely, the Union of India represented by the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and the Collector of Central Excise, Madras-34 from proceeding with the enforcement of Gold Control Trade Notices 6 and 7 of 1970 dated 18th June, 1970 and 27th July, 1970 respectively said to have been issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Madras. Those two writ petitions were filed obviosly on the basis that to the pawn-brokers the provisions contained in the Gold Control Act, 1968 did not apply.When the two writ petitions came up for hearing before Palaniswamy, J., the learned Judge observed ;

“In these two cases, the petitioners question the applicability of the Gold Control Act, 1968, to pawn brokers. This identical question is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Badri Prasad v. Collector, Central Excise in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the Gold Control Act is applicable to pawn-brokers and that pawn-brokers are not exempt from the provisions of the Act. In this view, the petitioners are not entitled to the writ in the terms prayed for, viz., direction against the respondents restraining them from proceeding against the petitioners in enforcement of the notices issued under the Act.”

Notwithstanding the fact the learned Judge dismissed the writ petitions, in view of certain representations made to the learned Judge, the learned Judge made a few observations in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the judgment. In paragraph 2, the learned Judge pointed out that the counsel representing the petitioners brought to the notice of the Court certain peculiar circumstances which required examination, that the counsel submitted that pawnbrokers, in the course of their business would receive gold as pledge, keep it for some time till it was redeemed and return it on redemption of the pledge, that in such a way the petitioners in those cases received gold, retained them and returned them to the pledgors, that on account of the operation of stay in those cases, the petitioners had not submitted their returns under the Gold Control Act, that if they were then required to submit the returns for the period covered by the stay, they would not be in a position to produce the gold that had been returned to the pledgors and that suitable directions might be given only in that regard. The learned Judge observed that that was a reasonable request. Having made that observation, the learned Judge proceeded to state:

"3. The petitioners being pawnbrokers have been maintaining registers under the Pawn Brokers Act. Though it may be possible for the petitioners to file the necessary returns in accordance with the Gold Control Act, it may not be possible for them to produce the gold for verification. It will result in practical difficulty in conforming to the requirements. The petitioners are entitled to be relieved of this obligation, having regard to the peculiar circumstances. In this view, the petitioners will be liable to file returns in terms of the Gold Control Act, 1968 from November, 1971, onwards:

4. With these observations, the petitions are dismissed. "

2. After the disposal of these two writ petitions, the Collector of Central Excise issued a Gold Control Trade Notice No. 3 of 1072 dated 3rd March, 1972. In this trade notice, it was stated that those pawnbrokers who were not covered by the orders of the High Court, Madras, namely , persons other than the petitioners in those two writ petitio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document