LexB. VISWANATHIAH AND COMPANY AND ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B. VISWANATHIAH AND COMPANY AND ORS. A r v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. FEBRUARY 11, 1991 [S. RANGANATHAN, KULDIP SINGH AND B N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] ~-( Constitution of India, 1950: Seventh Schedule-List I Entry 7,52/ List II Entry 24/27/List III, Entry 33-Declaration of artain industry to be within the purview of Parliamentary legislation-Raw materials, • production, and distribution of the products thereof-Legislation- c -/ Competence of State Legislature. Mysore Silkworm Seed and Cocoon (Regulation of Production, ___,,, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1959: Sections 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10- Enactment of-Competence of State Legislature in the context of Cent- ral Act-Whether repugnant to the provisions of Central Silk Boards D Act, 1948. The Mysore Silkworm Seed and Cocoon (Regulation of Produc- tion, Supply and Distribution) Act, 1959 provided for the regulation of production, supply and distribution of silk worm seed and cocoon in the ii .I. State of Mysore. The said Act was amended in 1969 and 1979. The 1979 E amendments imposed restrictions on the production, distribution and sale of silk yarn, and were analogous to the restrictions imposed earlier in respect of silk worm seeds and cocoons. The appellants filed Writ Petitions before the High Court chal- lenging the validity of the provisions of the Act on several grounds, F j- including lack -of legislative competence since the Central Silk Boards ,..___, Act, 1948 has already been passed by the Parliament. The High Court negatived the contentions and dismissed the Writ Petitions. The present appeals challenged the correctness of the said judgment. The Writ Petitions filed directly in this Court also challenged the G validity of the provisions of the said Act. ,-\ The main contention raised in these matters was that the provi- sions of the Act lack legislative competence after the enactment by Parliament of the Central Silk Boards Act, 1948 which contained a declaration contemplated under Entry 52 of List I in the Seventh H 305 A B c 306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R. Schedule to the Constitution of India, taking the Silk industry within the _purview of Parliamentary legislation. Dismissing the matters, this Court, HELD: 1. Legislation in regard to raw materials would be permis- sible under Entry 27 of List II, notwithstanding a declaration of the industry under Entry 5l to be one within the purview of parliamentary legislation. The process of manufacture or production can be legislated on by States under Entry 24 of List II so long as the industry is not a controlled industry within the meaning of Entry 7 or Entry 52 of List I. So far as the distribution of the products of the industry is concerned, the State Legislature would be quite competent to legislate under Entry 27 of List II. Howeyer, when the industry is also a controlled industry, legislation in regard to the products of the industry would be permissi- ble by both the Central and the State Legislatures by virtue of Entry 33 of List III. [314A-C] D Calcutta Gas Co. (P) Ltd. v. State, [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 1, relied on. 2. It is true that the Central Silk Boards Act purpots to control the raw silk industry in the territory of India. But the control of the industry vested in Parliament was only restricted to the aspect of pro- E duction and manufacture of silk yarn or silk. It did not obviously take in the earlier stages of the industry, namely, the supply of raw materials. Even in regard to the silk industry, the reeling, production, develop- ment and distribution of silkworm seeds and cocoons was regulated by the Mysore Silkworm Seed and Cocoon (Regulation of Production, Sup- ply and Distribution) Act, 1959. These items can perhaps be legiti- F mately described as the raw materials of the silk industry. The control being vested in Parliament under Entry 52, of silk industry, did not affect the control over the raw materials. That is perhaps the reason why the industry did not challenge the provisions of the Act, when it was originally enacted, on the ground that is now being put fo..Ward. The present legislation, as a result of the amendments, controls the . G supply and distribution of the goods produced by the industry. Though the production and manufacture of raw silk cannot be legislated upon by the State Legislature in view of the provisions of the Central Act and the declaration in section 2 thereof, that declarati
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.