LexHARAKCHAND RATANCHAND BANTHIA AND ORS. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• • / A HARAKCHAND RATANCHAND BANTHIA AND ORS. ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. April 30, 1969 B [M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI, c D E F G H G. K. MITTER AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] Go/cl (Control) Act (45 of 1968). ss. 4(4), 4(5). 5(l), (2), 27, 32, 39. 46, 88 and 100-/f violative of Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constllution -Delegation by Administrator under ss. 4 and 5(1). not excessive-The phr11se 'so far as it appears to him necessary or expedient', if subjective. Constitution of India, 1950, VII Schedule, List I, Entry 52, List II, Entry 27 (Jlld List III, l~ntry 33--Scope of-Manufacture oj ROid or1U1ments if industry-Whether control declared to he .rxpedient in public interest- Industries (Development and Regulation) Act (65 of 1951) ss. 2(a) and 2(d)-Scheduled industry £1nd 'industrial undertaking', if sy11ony1nous- 'Ma1111fact11rers and se1ni~1nanufacturer's 1neaning of. Severability-So111e sections decl11red ultra vires-Tests for determining validity of Act. Even. though import of gold into India had been banned, considerable quaatities of contraband gold \Vere finding their \Vay into the country through illegal channels, affectin.~ the· national economy and hampering the country's econon1ic stability and progress. The Customs Department was not in a position to cffeCtively cvmbat the smuggling over the long borders and coast lines. Therefore, anti-smuggling measures had to be supplemented by a detailed system of control over internal traMactions and the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, was passed for this purpOse. The petitioners, who were· goldsmiths. contended that; ( 1) the Act '\\o'as not within th>e legislative competence ot ParJiament, because, (a) Manufacture of gold ornaments by goldsmiths is not 'industry' within the meaning of Entry 52, List I or Entry 33. List Ill of the VJI Schedule to the Consti- tution; (b) Even if it was an 'industry' \vithin the meaning of the Legis- lative Entries, the Control of the Industry was not declared by Parliament to be expedient in the public interest as required by the Entries; (c) The provisions of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, indicate that what Parliament intended to control under Entry 52 was not the manufacture of gold ornaments by individual goldsmiths but 'industrial undertakings' as contemplated by s. 2(d) of that Act, because, the ex· pret>sion 'scheduled industry' in s. 2(a) and 'industrial undertaking' in s. 2(d) of that Act are synonymous; and (2) that the restrictions imposed bys.. 4(4). 4(5), 5(1), 5(2), 27(2)(d), 27(6), 32, 46, 88 an.cl JOO of the Gold (Control) Act were unreasonable and not in public interest and so are violative of Art. 19(1) (f) and, (g) of the Constitution, an.cl that s. 27 and s. 39 are discriminatory and violative of Art. J 4. HELD : (1) (a) The manufacture of gold ornaments by goldsmiths in India is a process of systematic production for trade or manufacture and so falls \vithin the connotation of the word ·industry'. in the appropriate legislative Entries. Therefore, in enacting the impugned Act, Parliament was validly exercising its legislative pov.1er in respect of matters covered by Entry 52 of List land Entry 33 of List Ill. Entry 27 of List II dealing with 'Production, supply and distribution of goods, subject to the provisions 480 SUPREME COUlT llBPOllTS [ 1970] 1 S.C.R. of Entry 33 of l...iat ill', is a general Entry and the general power ahould not be interpreted so as to nullify tho particular power conferred by F.ntry 52 of List I and Entry 33 of List Ill. There is no rouon for impooioa on the word 'industry' a restriction that tu comtitute industry, a process of machinery O£ mechanical contrivanoe is eseenlial. The mere uae of •kill or an by the goldsmith is not a decisive factor and will not t<ak.e the manufacture 01 goJd ornari1enLS out of the ambit of the relevant leaillative Enlries. The decioions in IJaMrji v. M11kherj~, [1953 J S.C.R. 302 and NationaJ Union of ComTMrr:ial Emp/oyeu v. M. R. Mther, (1962) SUpp. 3 S. C. R. 157 that the word industry in a. 2(j) of the lnd111trial Disputes Act, 1947 involved cooperation of employer and em- ployeea, did not mean that the activity carried on by self..,mployed &0ld- amiths individually without any panicipation by Jabour and capital in the activity would not fall within the word 'industry' in tho Uats of the Co111- titution. The interpretation of the word in the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.