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-