Validity of the provisions of the Act.

The petitioner is a pawnbroker, who has obtained a licence under the provisions of the Madras Pawn-brokers Act (XXIII of 1943). The relief, the petitioner asked for in the application he filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to restrain the Sub-Magistrate of Poonamallee, from proceeding with the enquiry against the petitioner initiated under section 15(1) of the Pawn-brokers Act. The constitutional validity of the Pawn-brokers Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was challenged by the petitioner; and in particular he challenged the constitutional validity of sections 3, 4, 6, 10, 13 and 20 of the Act. During the arguments, however, the validity of other sections of the Act also was assailed.

It may not be necessary to set out the events that led upto the institution of these proceedings by the petitioner. The question debated before me was, whether the Act as a whole or at least many of its provisions are void and unenforceable, and whether they come within the ban imposed by Article 13 of the Constitution.

The petitioner contended that the Act as a whole was discriminatory since it singled out only pawn-brokers among money-lenders for discriminatory treatment. That, the petitioner contended, brought the Act as a whole within the mischief of Article 14 of the Constitution. Even if Article 14 was not contravened, the petitioner urged, many of the provisions of the Act offended Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

The Madras Pawn-brokers Act was enacted in 1943, at a period when the legislative functions of the province of Madras vested in the Governor under the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935. The Preamble to the Act ran:

"Whereas it is expedient to make provision for the regulation and control of the business of pawnbrokers in the Province of Madras it is hereby enacted as follows:

It is permissible to understand the scope of the Preamble in the light of the Statement of Objects and Reasons, which ran:

"Many pawnbrokers, especially in urban areas, are suspected of receiving stolen property and there is a marked reluctance on their part to reveal the source from which the property is received by them. The account books of some pawnbrokers are now written in a script not current in this province and this adds considerably to the difficulty of preventing them from making an illegitimate use of their position. The Government therefore considered it necessary to enact a measure requiring pawnbrokers in this province to take out licences and subjecting their operations to a due measure of control on the lines of the English Pawn-brokers Act, 1872".

Consistent with the object set out to control the business of pawnbrokers, principally in urban areas, section 1(3) of the Act vested in the State Government the power to apply the provisions of the Act other than section 1 to the whole or any portion of the State of Madras by notification. Though the mischief sought to be prevented by the Act was noticeable in the past mostly in urban areas, the operation of the Act was not confined by the enactment itself to urban areas.

It is against this background that I have to consider the question mooted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, whether the Act as a whole falls within the rnischief of Article 14 of the Constitution. Prima facie, the Act is a discriminatory piece of legislation, since pawnbrokers alone even among money-lenders have been subjected to the control and regulation prescribed by the Act. The defence to the charge of discrimination was reasonable classification. If that prevails, the apparent discrimination will not be unconstitutional, and the enactment will fall outside the ban imposed by Article 14 on discriminatory legislation.

It may not be necessary to review at this stage the case-Jaw on the subject. What constitutes reasonable classification has been fairly well-settled now by the decisions of the Supreme Court.

"Pawnbroker" i