MESSRS. DWARKA PRASAD LAXMI NARAIN versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND TWO OTHERS.

Citation: [1954] 1 S.C.R. 803 · Decided: 11-01-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
803 
hands of the Crown has been made subject to the writ 
of civil court. It can be seized in execution of a decree 
attached. It is 
thus difficult to see on what grounds 
the claim that the Crown cannot be sued for arrears of 
salary directly by the civil servant, though his creditor 
can take it, can 
be based 
or 
substained. 
What 
could be claimed in England by a petition of right 
can be claimed in this country by ordinary process. 
For the reasons given above we are of the opinion 
that this appeal is without force 
and we accordingly 
dismiss it with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
Agent for the appellant : & H. D/zebar. 
Agent for the respondent : S. P. Varma. 
MESSRS. DW ARKA PRASAD LAXMI NARAIN 
ti. 
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 
TWO OTHERS. 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN c. J., MUKHERJEA, VIVIAN 
BosE, GHULAM HAsAN and JAGANNADHADAS JJ.] 
Constitution of India, Arts. 19(1) (g), 19 (6)-Clause 4(3) of the 
Uttar Pradesh Coal Control Order, 1953, tuhether ultra vires the 
Constitution. 
A law or order which confers arbitrary and 
uncontrolled 
power upon the executive in the matter of regulating trade or 
business in normally available commodities 
must be held to be un~ 
reasonable. 
Under 
cl. 4(3) 
of the Uttar Pradesh 
Coal Control 
Order, 1953, 
the licensing authority has been given absolute power , 
1 
to grant or refuse to grant, 
rene~r or refuse to 
~enew, suspend, 
revoke, 
cancel 
or modify any licence under this Order and the 
only thing he has to do is to record reasons for the action he takes. 
Not only so, the power could be exercised by any person to whom 
the State Coal Controller may choose 
to delegate 
the same, 
and 
the choice can be made in favour of any and every person. Such 
provisions cannot be held to be reasonable : 
Held, therefore that 
the 
provision of cl. 4(3) 
of the Uttar 
Pradesh 
Coal Control 
Order, 1953, 
must be held to be void as 
104 
1954 
The State of 
Bihar 
v. 
Abdul Majid. 
Mahajan C. ]. 
1954 
January 11. 
1954 
Messrs. Dwarka 
Prasad Laxmi 
Narain 
v. 
The il°late of 
Ultar Pradesh and 
Two Others. 
804 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1954] 
imposing an unreasonable 
restriction 
upon 
the freedom of trade 
and business guaranteed under art. 19 (I ) (g) of the Constitution 
and not coming within the protection afforded by cl. ( 6) of the 
;i,rticle. 
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (118 U.S. 356 at 373) referred to. 
ORIGINAL JuRismcnoN : Petition No. 326 of 1953. 
Original Petition under article 32 of the Constitu-
tion of India. 
S. C. Isaacs (S. K. Kapur, with him) for the peti-
tioners. 
H. /. U mri gar for the respondents. 
1954. January 11. The 'Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
MuKHERJEA J .-This is an application presented by 
the petitioners under article 32 of the Constitution, 
complaining of infraction of their fundamental 
rights 
guaranteed under article 14 and clauses (f) and (g) of 
article 
19 ( 1) 
of the Constitution and praying for 
enforcement of the same by issue of writs in the nature 
of mandamus. 
To appreciate the contentions that have been raised 
on behalf of the petitioners, it would be necessary to 
give a short narrative of the material facts. 
The 
petitioners are a firm of traders who had, prior to the 
cancellation of their licence, been carrying on the busi-
ness of retail sellers of coal at a coal depot held by 
them in the town 
of 
Kanpur. 
It is said that 
the 
District Magistrate of Kanpur as well as the District 
Supply Officer, who figure respectively as respondents 
Nos. 2 and 3 in the petition, had been for a consider-
able time past issuing directives from time to time 
upon the petitioners as well as other coal depot holders 
of the town, 
imposing restrictions 
of various 
kinds 
upon the sale of coal, soft coke, etc. It is stated that 
. prior to the 14th of February, 1953, the prices that 
were fixed by the District Officers left the coal dealers a 
margin of 20 per cent porfit upon the sale of soft coke 
and 15 per cent profit on the sales of hard coke and 
steam coal, . such profits being allowed on the landed 
costs of the goods up to the depot. The landed costs 
I 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
805 
comprised several items and besides ex-colliery price, 
the middleman's commission and the railway freight, 
there were incidental expenses of various kin\ls includ-
ing labour duty, loading and unloading charges, cartage 
and stacking expenses. After making a total of these 
cost elements, an allowance
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.