RAM NARAYAN AGARWAL ETC ETC. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 684 · Decided: 23-08-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
684. 
RAM NARAYAN AGARWAL ETC ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF UTT AR PRADESH & OTHERS 
August 23, 1983 
. (A ),'. SEN, E. S, VBNKATARAMIAH AND R. B. M1SllA, JJ.] 
Public Debt-Process employed for recovery of dues to Government under 
the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, by resort to arrest and detention in civil prison, 
in accordance with section 279(1) (b) read with seCtion 281 of the U.P. Zamindari 
C 
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and Rules 247, 247A, 247B and 251 of 
the UPZALR 1952-Constitutional validity of-Whether violative of Articles 14, 
19(1) (d) and 21 of the Constitution and repugnant to Article 11 of the Inter-
national.Covenant on Civil and Political Rights-Applicability of Section 51 of 
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The Petitioners had committed default in payment of the tax payable 
by them under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. Any such dues could be recovered 
as if arrears of land revenue in terms of sub~sections (3) and (8) of section 8 
of the 1948 Act read with Rule 50 of the U.P; Salex Tax Rules, 1948. Section 
5 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, as in force in the State of Uttar Pradesh 
speaks of the obligation arid other duties of the coitectors for re~overy of sums 
recoverabJe as arrears of revenue on the certificates of public officers and 
Local Authorities. The procedure for such a recovery however is provided itt 
sections 279 and 281 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Revenue 
Act, 1950 read with Rules 246, 247A, 2478 and 251 of the U.P. Zamindari 
Abolition and Land Revenue Rules, 1952. Under clause (b) of the sub-section 
(I) of section 279 of the UPZALR Act, recevery by resort to arrest and· deten-
tion of the person concerned" is also provided. On certificates jssued by the 
assessing Auth9rity, in terms of section 33 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, 
warrants of arrest had either been issued or were about to be issued by the 
concerned Revenue Officers for the arrest and detention of the petitioners, in 
the course of the recovery proceedings. The petitioners have challenged the 
same as constitutionally invalid being violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (d) and 21 
of the Constitution and repugnant to Article 11 of the 1nternational Covenant 
on Civil and Political Rights. 
Allowing the petitions in part, the Court 
HELD : 1:1. The impugned procedure contained in the U.P. Zamidari 
. Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1948 and the Rules made thereunder is not 
violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (d) and 21 of the Constitution. [699 G] 
The Co/lee/or of Malabar v. :f'rimal Ebrahim Ha]ee, (1957] S.C.R, 979 
applied. 
lµM NARAYAN V. U.P. 
685 
Sangam La( Gupta v. Sales Tax Officer & Others., [1969) All. L J. 257, 
approved. 
,j, 
1 ~2. Jn the instant coses, the petitioners cannot be detained pursuant to 
any warrant of arrest already issued, since no such enquiry, as contemplated 
in Rule 251 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952, 
by the officer who issued the warrant into the question whether the detention 
of the defaulter would compel him to pay the arrears by arresting and detain· 
)ng the defaulters in accordance with law,by passing fresh orders. [695 G-H) 
2. Article 11 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political 
Rights cannot come to the aid of the petitioners since it has not been made 
yet a_ part of Indian municipal law and further it relates to a debt due under a 
contractual obligation. [692 CJ 
Jolly George Verghese and Another v. The Bank of Cochin .• [1980) 2 SCR 
913, explained and distinguished. 
3:1 Whether a restriction imposed by..-a statutory provision on the funda-
mCntal right guaranteed under Article 19(1) (d) of the Constitution is reason· 
able or not is now governed by well established norms. It is ·settled by a long 
line of decisions of this Court that the restriction must not be arbitrary or ex-
cessive in nature so as to be beyond the requirement of the general public. The 
Court should strike a just ba1ance between freedom contained in Article 19(1) 
(d) of the Constitution and the social interest to be protected. No universal ru1t 
can be laid down in this regard. The changing social conditions, the values of 
human life. the prevailing social philosophy and all the surrounding· circum-
stances should be taken into consideration. In a case like this where public 
dues are to be collected some amount of coercion is necessary to make a 
recalcitrant defaulter who.!_las fraudulently secreted his assets to sc

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.