LexRAI SAHIB RAM JAWAYA KAPUR AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' ' 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS RAI SAHIB RAM JAWAYA KAPUR AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB (AND CONNECTED PETITIONS). 225 [MUKHERJEA, C.J., VIVIAN BOSE, JAGANNADHADAS VENKATARAMA AYYAR and IMAM JJ.] Constitutio11 of India, Arts. 19(/)(g), 73 and 162-Printing, publishing and selling of text books for recognised schools in the State of Punjab taken by the State Government exclusively in their own hands-Whether any fundamental right of the private pub- lishers who were ousted from the business, contravened-Art. 19(1) (g) of the Constitution-Arts. 73 and 162-Whether contain any definition of executive function-Union executive or the State executive-Whether legislation by Parliament or State Legislature ott certain items appertaining to their respective lists, a condition p1·ecedent to the Union or State execu.tive functioning in respect to them. For a long period of time prior to 1950 the text books for re- cognised schools in the State of Punjab were prepared by private publishers with their own money and under their own arrangements and they were submitted for the approval of the Government; The Government approved some books on each subject as alternative text books. leaving it to the discretion of the Head Masters of difk- rl.'nt schools to select any alternative book on each subject. In May 1950- books on certain subjects (like agriculture, history, social studies, etc.) were prepared and published by'the Government them- ~elves without inviting offers from private publishers. With respect to other subjects, -0ffers were invited from "publishers and authors". The alternative method was given up and only one text book on each subject was selected. The Government charged as royalty 5 % on the sale price of all the approved text books. In 1952 a notifica- tion was issued by the Government which omitted the word "pub- lishers" altogether and invited only "authors and others" to submit books for approval by the G<>vemment. The "authors and others" whose books were approved, had to enter into an agreement in the form prescribed by the Government the principal term of the agree- ment was that tho copyright in these books would vest absolutely in Government and the 'authors and others' would get or Royalty of 5 % on the sale price of the text books. It was contended that the publishing, printing and selling of text books was thus taken by the Government exclusively into its own hands and the private pub- lishers were altogether ousted from the business. The petitioners, who purport to carry on the business of preparing, printing, publish- ing and selling text hooks for recognised schools in the Punjab, pre- 1955 April 12 226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1955] 1955 ferred the present petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution praying Rai Sahib Rum for writs of mandamus directing the Punjab Government to with- Jawaya Kapnr draw the notifications of 1950 and 1952 on the ground that they a11d others contravened the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed v. under the Constitution. _The· Stale of Punj11b Held that the action of the Government, whether it was good or bad, does not amount to an infraction of the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 19(l)(g) of the Constitution. Jn the present case no fundamental rights of the petitioners were violated by the notifi- cations and the acts of the executive Government of the Punjah done by them in furtherance of their policy of nationalisation of the text books for the school students. A mere chance or prospect of having particular customers can- not be said to be a right to property or to any interest or under- taking within the meaning of Art. 31(2) of the Constitution and no question of payment of compensation can arise because the petitioners have been deprived of the same. Articles 73 and 162 of the Constitution do not contain any definition as to what the executive function is and what activities would legitimately come within its scope. They are concerned pri· marily with the distribution of executive power between the Union on the one band and the component States on the other. They do not mean that it is only when Parliament or the State Legislature has legislated on certain items appertaining to their respective lists that the Union executive or the State executive,· as the case may be, can proceed to function in respect of them. On the other hand, the language of Art. I 62 dearly indicates that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.