LexM. A. RASHEED AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B ..... I c D E F G H M. A. RASHEED AND ORS. l'. THE STATE OF KERALA September 18, 1974 [A. N. RAY, C.J, AND V, R. KRISHNA IYER, J,) 93 D£•J£,,zce of India Act, 1971 ss. 3(2)(21) a11d 38 a/Iii Defe11ce of Ind/a R11les,. 1971, r. 114-Notificat/011 wider prohiblti11g 11se of machinery for defibrl11g co· conut lwsks-S11bjecilve satisfaction of authority-Court's power 111 relation to. -Notifjcntion if vio/ati1•e of Art. 301 of Constitution. The appellants, who are owners of Small Scale Industrial Units, employ me·· chanised process for decortication of retllld coconut husks. The respondent-State issued a notification in July 1973, under r. 114(2) of the Defence of India Rules,. I 971, imposing a total ban on the use of machinery for defibring husks in the district of Trivandrum, Quilon and Alleppey. The apP.ellants, who were affected. b¥ the notification, challenged the validity of the notification. · The High Court. d1s111issed the petition. In appeal to this Court, it was contended : (I) that s. 3(2)(21) of the Defence of India Act does not authorise r. 11.4; (2) that the formation of opinion by the State Government for the exercise qf eower under the rule is a justiciable issue, that the court should call for the material on which. the opinion had been formed, and examine it to find .. out whether a reasofrnble man or authority could have come to the conclusion 'that for securing equitable distribution and availability of retted husks at fair !'rices a regulation or prohibi· tion of the manµfacture of fibre by mechanical process was necessary; (3) that the reasons given in the notification imposing a total ban on the use of machinery were not justified; ( 4) that there was no application of the mind by the autho- rity to any genuine materials or relevant considerations while exercising th11 power; (5) thats. 38 of the Defence of India Act requires that, consonant with· the purpos~ of ensuring lhe public safety, defence of India and Civil defeno.!, there should be 'minimum interference by an authority or person, acting in pur· sua1tce of the Act with the ordinary avocations· of life and enj'oyment. of property; (6) that the notification offended Art. 14; arid (7) that it viol_ated Art. 301, of the ConMitution. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : (I) Rule 114 is in complete consonance with the powers conferred· under s. 3(2) (21 ). [102 BJ (2) Where powers are conferred on public ·authorities to exercise the same whefi. "they are satisfied" or when "it appears to them," or when "in their opinion ... 3' cenain State of affairs exists. or when powers enable public ,;utho- rities to take "such action as they think .fit'' in relation to a subje.:t malt·~r, the· courts will not readily defer to the conclusiveness. of an executive authority's opinion as to the existenoe of a matter of law or fljj:t upon which the v&lidity of' the exercise of the · power is predicated. wl.\dministrative decisions in ·exercise of. powers conferred in subjective terms are to be made in good faith and on relevant considerations. The courts can inquire· whether a reasonable man could have come to the decision in· ques· tion without misdirecting· himself on the law or the facts in a material· r.;,:;pect. The standard of reasonableness to which the administrutive body is re- quired to conform may range from the court's opinion of what is reasonable to the criterion of what a reasonable body might have decided; and courts will find out whether conditions precedent to the formation of the opinion have a factual basis. Bllt the onus of establishing unreasonableness rests upon the person chal· lcnging the validity of the acts. [99 'C -0. E-G) . .. (3) The Committee appointed b)' the State Government in connection with the revision of minimum wages in the coir industry reported that when unem- nloyment is acute in the State it is not practicable to encourage mechanisation for lit-re production till alternative soLm:e,; of employment are developed. and: 94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1975] 2 s.c.R. J'eCOmmended that the Government might a\>point a separate committee to study .the various problems resulting from mechamsation in the industry. Accordingly, .a study group was appointed and that group reported that coir industry brings .employment or partial employment to a(l area where there is chronic unemploy- ment and under-employment,, and hence, any kind of mechanisation is bound
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.