- (1.) THESE are two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the constitutionality of Section 71 read with Sections 73, 74, and 75 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, being violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. As the two petitions involve common q uestions of facts and law, they are being disposed of by one common judgment.
(2.) IN Writ Petition No. 6429 of 1971, petitioner no. 1 is a Partnership firm. It carries on the business in gold, ornaments and articles of gold under the name and style of M/s. L. Kashi Nath Seth, at Lucknow. The petitioner firm is a licensed dealer under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. It is authorised to acquire ownership, possession, custody and control of gold, ornaments and articles of gold in accordance with the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act. On 27th April, 1971, at about 11.00 A. M., the Superintendent of the Central Excise Department, Lucknow, and other officials along with other persons of the staff raided the business premises of the petitioner and conducted a search. During the course of search, the officials of the Excise Department found ornaments kept on the ground floor for sale for which there was no licence. They further found that the account books of the firm were not maintained for certain period and the forms prescribed under the Gold (Control) Act were also not maintained. One piece of foreign gold was found from the possession of one of the artisans working at the business premises of the petitioner. The officials of the Excise Department took into custody 2583 pieces of ornaments, which weighed 2151.370 grams. The petitioner protested against the search of premises and the seizure of the aforesaid goods, but the officials of the Excise Department did not release the goods. The petitioners, thereupon, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the search and seizure of the ornaments from the shop. It was, later on, numbered as writ petition No. 2939 of 1971. The writ petition was eventually allowed by order dated 10th August, 1971. The decision in that case is reported in AIR 1972 All 16. In that case, this Court held that the respondents had seized the ornaments in respect of which no contravention of the Act was alleged or ascertained and that there was nothing on the record to show that the respondents had a reasonable belief that the particular ornaments, which had been seized, were those ornaments in respect of which contravention of the Act had taken place. Thus, in the absence of the existence of the condition precedent, the officials acted in excess of their authority in seizing the ornaments. Special Appeal filed against that judgment was also dismissed. The appellate judgment is also reported in AIR 1972 All 231.
(3.) IN the meantime, the petitioner was given a notice dated 11th October, 1971, to show cause why the goods mentioned in the notice should not be confiscated under Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act. The petitioners have come to challenge the said notice and the proceedings consequent thereto on the ground that Sections 71, 73, 74 and 75 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 are all ultra vires.;