S GANAPATHRAJ SURANA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since similar questions have been raised against the validity of some of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1980 (Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1980 and the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act 25 of 1976, these cases have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The case of the petitioners, who are money lenders and pawn brokers, is that since their business is not related to agricultural indebtedness, the State legislatures are not vested with legislative power to enact a law granting any relief of non-agricultural indebtedness, adversely affecting their interest. On this ground those provisions of the two Acts, which purport to extinguish the debts of all kinds incurred by small farmers, landless labour and persons belonging to weaker classes before a certain date, are challenged as ultra vires.

(3.) Mr Krishnamani, appearing on behalf of the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 5431-33 of 1985 (the term 'petitioners' will also include the appellants in the Civil Appeals) and Mr G. L. Sangni, representing some other writ petitioners, have confined the ground of challenge to alleged lack of legislative competence on the part of the State legislatures in relation to debts which are not agricultural. Mr Vaidyanathan, counsel for the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 1326 of 1979, has, besides raising the question of lack of legislative competence, contended that the impugned provisions are violative of the guarantee under Article 19 (1 sub-clause (g) , as also under sub-clause (f) , as the Karnataka Act was passed before the clause 1 (f) of Article 19 was omitted from the Constitution.