IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V.N. KHARE, K. NARAYAN, JJ.
Balwant Singh - Appellant
Versus
Divisional Forest Officer (west), Almora - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2525 of 1988
Decided On : 07-07-1992
UP RESIN AND OTHER FOREST PRODUCE ACT, 1976 - SECTION 4(A), 5(1)(C), 10 - EXECUTIVE POWER - BAN ON NEW INDUSTRY FOR MANUFACTURE OF RESIN PRODUCT - VALIDITY - STATE GOVERNMENT HAS NO POWER TO TOTALLY PROHIBIT SETTING UP OF NEW INDUSTRIES FOR MANUFACTURE OF VARNISH FROM RESIN BY AN EXECUTIVE ORDER.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner applied for a license to set up a factory for the manufacture of varnish from Biroja. The Director of Industries granted the license, but the Deputy Conservator of Forest refused to register the Petitioner under the Uttar Pradesh Resin and other Forest Produce Act, 1976 (the Act), citing a government policy prohibiting the registration of new units for the manufacture of resin products. The Petitioner challenged the decision of the subcommittee and the government's letter implementing the ban, arguing that the State Government had no power to totally prohibit the manufacture of varnish from Biroja or resin and that the ban was unconstitutional.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the State Government had no power under the Act to completely prohibit the setting up of new industries for the manufacture of varnish from resin. The Court found that the manufacture of varnish and paint was not an obnoxious or dangerous trade or business and that the ban was not supported by any legislative authority. The Court also held that the ban was not a reasonable restriction on the Petitioner's right to carry on a trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Government has the power to totally prohibit the setting up of new industries for the manufacture of varnish from Biroja or resin by an executive order? 2. Whether the ban on the registration of new units for the manufacture of resin products is a reasonable restriction on the Petitioner's right to carry on a trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the State Government has no power under the Act to completely prohibit the setting up of new industries for the manufacture of varnish from resin. The Court found that the manufacture of varnish and paint was not an obnoxious or dangerous trade or business and that the ban was not supported by any legislative authority. 2. The Court held that the ban on the registration of new units for the manufacture of resin products was not a reasonable restriction on the Petitioner's right to carry on a trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the decision of the subcommittee dated 5-12-80 to the extent it prohibits setting up new industry for manufacture of varnish from resin and State Government's letter dated 25-5-81 and the order rejecting Petitioners application for registration and direct the Respondents to consider the application of the Petitioner for registration u/s 10 of the Act in accordance with law.
V.N. Khare, J.
This writ petition raises questions as to scope of executive power of the State imposing ban on setting up of new industry for manufacture of resin product.
2. Briefly the facts are that the Petitioner who intends to set up a factory for manufacture of varnish from Biroja applied to the Director of Industries, Government of Uttar Pradesh for grant of a licence to that effect. The Director of Industries by order dated 23-3-83 granted licence to the Petitioner as applied for. Since u/s 10 of Uttar Pradesh Resin and other Forest Produce Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) every manufacturer of resin product is entitled to registration on payment of fee the Petitioner applied to the Deputy Conservator of Forest (West), Almora. Forest Division for being registered under the Act. The Divisional Forest Officer, Almora by letter dated 22-7-87 informed the Conservator of Forest that in view of government policy Petitioners case cannot be recommended for registration by the concerned authority. The Petitioner thereafter, made several representations to the authorities constituted under the Act but was told that his proposed unit cannot be registered. This has led the Petitioner to file the present writ petition.
3. The Petitioner in the writ petition originally prayed that the Respondents be directed to issue registration certificate to him. Subsequently, a counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the Respondents where in it was stated that the subcommittee on Economic Development and Maintenance of State Cabinet has taken a decision in its meeting held on 5-12-80 that the resin being produced in a very little quantity no new unit for manufacture of resin product should be registered This decision of the subcommittee was conveyed to the Conservator of Forest, Kumaun Circle, Nainital by letter dated 25-5-81. Consequently, the application of the Petitioner for registration was rejected. In view of disclosure of facts relating to decision of the sub-committee, the Petitioner moved a formal application challenging the decision of the sub-commit tee as being illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional This amendment application was allowed by this Court and the Petitioner was permitted to challenge the decision of the subcommittee placing total ban on the registration of new unit for manufacture of resin product as well as the letter dated 25-5-81 in pursuance of which his application for registration of the proposed unit was rejected.
4. Sri L.P. Naithani learned Counsel for the Petitioner raised two submissions before us. The first argument is that State Government under the Act has no power to totally prohibit the manufacture of varnish from Biroja or resin and secondly, by an executive order the State Government cannot ban the setting up of new unit for manufacture of varnish and decision of the sub-committee of Uttar Pradesh Cabinet and the letter of the Government dated 25-5-91 are ultra vires, unconstitutional and hit by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution On the other hand, the learned standing counsel urged that the said executive order is referable to the Act and further since there is dearth of resin in the State of UP and therefore, no new unit can be permitted to be registered and the decision of the sub-committee and consequential order issued by the Government imposes a reasonable restriction and it is constitutionally valid.
5. For appreciating the argument of the learned Counsel for the parties, it is necessary to look into the provisions of the Act. The object of the Act is to provide for carrying on by the State of the trade of purchase and distribution of resin to the exclusion of others and for the regulation of manufacture and preparation of various articles based on forest produce and for matter connected there with. Section 2(f) of the Act defines 'resin product.' 'Resin product' means derivatives obtained by processing of resin and includes resin, turpentine, hardened resin and also inclu
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.