KRISHNAN KAKKANTH versus GOVERNMENT OF KERALA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 487 · Decided: 11-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
KRISHNAN KAKKANTH 
v. 
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA AND OTHERS 
OCTOBER 11, 1996 
[G.N. RAY AND B.L. HASNARIA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India Article 19(1)(g)--Fundamental rights under the 
Article-Not absolute and are subject to various restrictions in the interest of 
general public-Imposition of reasonable restrictions-cHeld justified . 
Right to Business-Held, one cannot insist Government or an in-
dividual for doing business with him. 
Constitution of India Article l~Reasonableness-cNot necessary to 
enter upon any exercise for finding out wisdom of policy decision of Govern-
A 
B 
c 
ment, except for testing public policy and constitutionality. 
D 
The government of Kerala issued a circular directing that the 
Regional Agro Industries Development Corporation (RAIDCO) and M/s. 
Kerala Agro Industries Corporation (KAICO) would supply pump sets to 
farmers, in 8 districts of Kerala. The appellants challenged the Constitu-
tional validity of the circular in the High Court. The High Court upheld the E 
circular. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court the appellant has ap-
proached this court. 
The contention of the appellant was that the fundamental rights of , 
the private dealers under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution was violated . F 
by the Government. The Circular impinges upon the right to trading ac-
tivities of dealers in pump sets. The circular has created discriminatory 
monopoly in favour of two dealers and must be held violative of Article 14 
of the Constitution. 
On the other hand according to the respondent the trading activities G 
of the pump sets have not been controlled or regulated. The Government 
only indirectly created some prejudice in carrying on trade or business and 
as such the action does not offend Article 19(1)(g). The respondent further 
contended that the government is duty bond to select appropriate dealers 
who would supply genuine pump sets to farmers with proper after sale 
service. 
487 
H 
488 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Fundamental rights Guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of 
the Constitution are not absolute but are subject to reasonable restrictions 
to be imposed to strike a balance between the freedom guaranteed under 
B Article 19(1) and the social control permitted by clauses (2) to (6) under 
Article 19. The reasonable restriction is to be determined in an objective 
manner and from the stand point of the interests of general public. 
[498-F-G] 
2. The infringement of fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) 
C must have a direct impact on the restrictions on freedom to carry on trade 
and not ancillary or incidental effects on such freedom. [500-E] 
3. A citizen has a fundamental right to 'carry on trade or business 
but he has no fundamental right to insist upon the Government or any 
other individual for doing business with him. Any government or an 
D individual has got a right to enter into contract with particular person or· 
persons with whom he or it will deal. [ 499-H, 500-A] 
4. It is not necessary to enter upon any exercise for finding out th1! 
wisdom in the policy decisions ot the State Government to ascertain 
E reasonableness and arbitrariness of Article 14 of the constitution. Unless 
the policy decision is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary or suffers from 
the vice of discrimination or infringes any statute or provision of the 
constitution, it cannot be struck down. Except for the limited purpose of 
testing a public policy in the context of illegality and unconstitutionality 
F 
Court should avoid "embarking on uncharted ocean of public policy". 
[501-G-H, 502-A] 
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR (1963) SC 1295, relied on. 
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The Intemational AiTport Authority of 
India, AIR (1979) SC 1628; Viklad Coal Merchants Patiala v. Union of India, 
G [1984) 1SCR657, 682; Hanif v. State of Bihar, AIR (1958) SC 73; Laxmi v. 
State of U.P., AIR (1981) SC 873, Traveli v. State of Gujarat, AIR (1968) SC 
1323; Harekchand v. Union of India, AIR (1970) SC 1453; Sagir v. State of 
U.P., [1955] 1 SCR 707; P. T.C.S. v. RTA AIR (1960) SC 801; Meenakshi 
Mills v. Unio11 of I11dia, AIR (1979) SC 3366 and Lala Ha1icha11d Sarda v. 
H Mizo District Cou11cil a11dA11r., [1967) 1SCR1012, referred to. 
.. 
KRISHNANKAKKANTHv. GOVf.OFKERLA[G.N.RAY,J.) 
489 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13029 of A 
1996. 
from the Judgment and Order dated 7.2.96 of the Kerala High Court 
i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.