The main legal point established in the judgment is that the classification of companies based on the crucial date under Section 21-A of the Act was within the wisdom of the legislature and not arbitrary or unreasonable.

The Order of the Court was as follows :

The Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Act, 1943, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was enacted to regulate and control the business of Pawn Brokers in the State of Tamil Nadu. The said Act got the assent of the Governor General on the 8th Nov. 1943 and published in the Fort St. George Gazette on 23rd Nov. 1943.

2. As per Section 3 of the Act, no person shall, after the expiry of three months from the date on which the provision of this Act came into force in any area, carry on or continue to carry on business as pawn broker at any place in such area, unless he has obtained a pawn brokers licence under this Act. The explanation to Section 3 of the Act makes it clear that where a pawn broker has more than one shop or place of business. whether in the same town or village or in different towns and villages, he shall obtain a separate pawn brokers licence in respect of each such shop or business.

3. Section 22 of the Act enables the State Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act. Accordingly, the Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Rules, 1943, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') were framed in G.O. Ms. 2064, Development, dated 13th May, 1944.

4. As per the provisions of the said Act and Rules, a licence to continue to carry on the business as pawn broker, at any place in Tamil Nadu , issued thereunder is mandatory.

5. However, Section 21-A was inserted by Tamil Nadu Act 7 of 1948, which reads as follows :

Section 21-A:

Power to exempt companies registered before 1st Nov. 1944 - The State Government may, by general or special order, exempt any company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, before the 1stday of Nov. 1944 from any of the provisions of this Act or direct that any such provision shall apply to such company with such modifications as may be specified in the order.

(Emphasis supplied)

6. Section 21-A empowers the State Government to exempt any company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913, before 1st Nov. 1944, either by general or special order, from any of the provisions of this Act or direct that any of such provision shall apply to such company with such modifications as may be specified in the order. Aggrieved by the said determination of the date, viz. 1-11-1944 for granting exemptions to the companies which are registered before 1-11-1944 and denying the same to the companies registered after 1-11-1944, the petitioners seek a writ of Declaration declaring that the words "before the first day of Nov. 1944 " inserted in Section 21-A of the Act are null and void and not applicable to them.

7.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the determination of the date viz. 1-11-1944 for classifying the companies, which were registered under the Companies Act, 1913, before 1-11-1944 and after 1-11-1944 for exempting any provision of the Act or to direct that any such provision shall apply to such companies that were registered before 1-11-1944, with such modification, either by general or special order, is abritrary, discriminatory and therefore, violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India, as both the classes of the Companies are doing the very same nature of business as pawn broker.

7.2. It is contended that there is no justification to discriminate the companies that are doing business as pawn broker for granting exemption under Section 21-A of the Act, on the basis of registration as companies before 1-11-1944 or after 1-11-1944, as equals cannot be treated as unequals.

7.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the above discrimination is unreasonable and suffers for want of nexus between the power sought to be exercised under Section 21-A of the Act and the object sought to be achieved thereunder.

8.1. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State inviting my attention to the fact that the Act came into force on 23-11-1943, that Section 3 of the Act requires any person who propo