RANJIT SINGH ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 847 · Decided: 26-09-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

RANJIT SINGH ETC. ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
September 26, 1980 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S'. PATHAK, JJ.] 
Constitution oif India 1950, Arts. 19(1) (g) and 32 and Arms Act 1959-
Petitioner granted licence to manufacture a specified number of gun~urtail­
ment of quota-Whether valid-Whether [aches in invoking the jurisdiction of 
the Court. 
In 1950, the State Government issued a manufacturing licence renewabie 
every year to the petitioners for the manufacture by hand of a specified num-
847 
A 
B 
c 
ber \of guns per month. The guns were however not proof-tested. 
D 
After the Arms Act 1959, came into force, the government insisted that 
the guns manufactured should undergo proof-testing. 
Pursuant to that condi· 
tion ·in 1960, the petitioners installed machinery and plant, by making sub· 
stantial investment of funds. 
From 1964, the Government of India, reduced 
the monthly quota of guns. 
The petitioners in their writ petitions under Article 32 alleged that· this 
reduction had resulted in considerable hardship to them because of the fixed 
overhead costs which could not be avoided. They also alleged that though in 
the case of a number of other such manufacturers quotas were restored, in 
their cases, the Government refused to restore the quotas. 
The Union of India, however, denied the allegation of arbitrariness, and 
stated that: (a) what was done was pursuant to the Industrial Policy Resolu· 
tion of 1956 which envisioned an exclusive monopoly in the Central Govern· 
ment in the matter of manufacturing arms and ammunition and that in fixing 
the quota the manufacturing capacity of a concern was not a determining factor; 
(b) there is no fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to 
carry on the manufacture of arms; and (c) there was !aches on the ·part of 
the petitioners. 
Allowing the writ petitions, 
HELD: (a)(i) Any curtailment of the quota must proceed on the basis of 
reason and relevance. 
The Government is entitled to take into consideration 
the requirements of current administrative policy pePtinent to the maintenance 
of law and order and internal securny. If all relevant factors are not con-
. sidered, or irrelevant consideratiolls a1lciwed to find place, the decision is vitiated 
by arbitrary judgment. [850 F; El 
In the instant case the Gov.ernment of India had not taken into careful 
consideration the several elements necessary for forming . a decision on the 
E 
F 
G 
H 
84 8 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1981) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
quota permissible to each of the petitioners. 
That should be done and for 
that purpose the petitioners would be entitled to place before the Government 
a fresh and complete statement of their case, with supporting material, to 
enable the Government to reach a just decision. 
[850G·H] 
B 
c 
(ii) The Industrial Policy Resolution envisaged a prohibition against an 
increase in the quota of guns, not its curtailment. 
No 
objection could be 
taken to the government's instructions 
on the 
subject. 
The other factors 
governing the fixation of the actual quota are the production capacity of .the 
factory, the quality of the guns produced and the economic viability of the 
unit. The Industrial Policy Resolution contains a specific commitment to per-
mit the continuance of the factories which were functioning for several years 
earlier. [850C; D-E) 
(b) The Arms Act 1959, expressly contemplates the grant of licences for 
manufacturing arms and an applicant for a licence is entitled to have it con-
sidered in accordance with the, terms of the statute and to press for its grant 
on the basis of the criteria set forth in it. [851A-B] 
(c) The licences are granted for specific periods with a right to apply for 
D 
renewal on the expiry of each period. Each renewal constitutes a further grant 
of rights and it is open to the applicant to show on each occasion that the 
quota governing the preceding period should be revised in th@ light of present 
circumstances. [85JC] 
In the instant case the petitioners had been continuously agitating for the 
restoration of their quota. 
They are, therefore, not guilty of !aches and are 
E 
entitled to relief. [851D] 
F 
G 
H. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition Nos. 833-835 of 1979. 
(Under article 32 of the Constitution) 
P. Parmeswara Rao, G. D. Gupta and Ashwani Kumar for the 
Petitioners. 
U. R. Lalit and Miss A. Subshashrni for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PATHAK, J.-In these three petit

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