LexAKADASI PADHAN versus STATE OF ORISSA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
691
AKADASI PADHAN
f},
STATE OF ORISSA
(B. P. SINHA., c. J.. P. B. GAJENDRA.GADKAR,
K. N. WANOHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and
j. C. SHAH, jj.)
&ale Monopoly-Ktndu Lt.av...-Appoinlment of agema-
Agreement toith agents-Validity of-Article 19 (6) (ii)-Scope
and effect of-Rule 7 (6)-Validity of Act and••· 3, 4, 8,-0ris8a
KenJu Leavea (Oontrol of Trade) Act, 1961 (Orisaa 28 of ,961),
••· 3, 4, 8-0onstitution of India, Arts. 19 (1) (/) and (g),
19 (6).
Prior to 1961, the petitioner used to carry on extensive
trade in the sale of Kendu leaves. In 1962, the State of Orissa
acquired a monopoly in the trade of Kendu leaves and put
restrictions on the fundamental rights of. the petitioner. Three
notifications were issued by the State on January 8, 1962,
January 25, 1962 and March 10, 1962 for that purpose. Jn
.bis petition under Art. 32, the petitioner
challenged the
validity of the notifications and also the validity of the whole
Act, particularly ss. 3 and 4, on the ~ound that they violated
Art. 19 (I) (f) and (g). The petitioner prayed for a decla•
ration that the whole act was ultra vires and also an order
restraining ihe State from giving eft'ect. to the notification and
the Act.
Held, that the Orissa Kendu Leaves (Control of Trade)
Act, 1961, is a valid piece of legislation. The creation of State
monopoly in Kendu Leaves is within the scope of Art. 19 (6)
of the Constitution as amended
by the constitution (First
amendmtnt) Act, 1951. A law creating a State monopoly in
the narrow and limited sense is valid under the latter part of
Art. 19 (6). ff it indirectly impinges on any other right, its
validity cannot he challenged on that ground. If the sa\d
law contains other incidental provisions which are not essential
and do not constitute an integral part of .the monopoly created hy
it, the validity of those provisions has to be tested under the
ti.St part .of Art. 19 (6).
If they directly impinge on any
other fundamental right granted by Art; 19 (I), the validity of
the said clauses has to be tested by reference to the correspon·
ding clauses of Art. 19;
1962
December 5.
1962
Akadasi Ptuilum
••
Stale of Ori11a
692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
•
The essential atrributes of the law creating a monopoly
will vary with the nature of the trade or busines1 in which the
monopoly is created. They will depend u1ron the nature of
the commodity, the nature of commerce in which it is involved
and several other circumstances.
A law relating to State monopoly in respect of road
transport or air transport would not normally infringe the
citizen's fundamental right under Art. 19 (1) (f). Likewise,
a State monopoly to manufacture steel, armaments, transport
vehicles or railway engines and coaches can be provided for
by law and that would not normally impinge on Art. 19 (I} (f).
However, if the law creating such monopolies makes incidental
provisions directly impinging on the citizens' right under
Art. 19 (I) (f}, the case would be different.
Having regard to the scheme of the State monopoly
envisaged by the Act, s. 4 cannot be said to be such an essen-
tial part of the said monopoly as to fall within the expression
"law relatilll{ to" under Art. 19 (6). The validity of s. 4 has
to be tested in the light of the first part of Art. 19 (6) so far as
the petitioner's rights under Art. 19 ( 1) (g} are concerned and
under Art. 19 (5) so far as his rights under Art. 19 (I) (f) arc
concerned. So tested, the restrictions regarding the fixation of
prices .prel<'.ribcd bys. 4 are reasonable and in the interc.t of
the general public both under Art. 19 (5) and Art. 19 (6).
Hence s. 4 is valid.
·
Section 3 of the Act is also not open to any challenge.
This section allows either the Government or an officer of the
Government authorised in that beha,lf or an agent in respcr.t of
the unit in which the leaves have grown, to purchase or
transport Kcndu leaves. The Court was satisfied that the two
categories of persons specffied in els. (b) and (c) are intended to
work as agents of the Government and all their actions and
dealings in pursuance of the provisions of the Act would be
actions and dealings on behalf of the Government and for the
benefit of the Government. Ifs. 3 is valid, s. 8 which autho-
rises ihe appointment of agents, must also be held valid.
When the State carries on any trade, business or industry
it must inevitably carry it on eExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.