- (1.) IN this application under Article 286 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the notice issued under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Emergency Risks (Factories)Insurance Act, 1962, dated 17th february, 1966 issued by the Chief enforcement Officer and also notice dated 11th August, 1966, issued by the Chief enforcement Officer, Emergency Risks insurance Scheme. By the first notice dated 17th February, 1966, the petitioner was directed to produce certain documents for ascertaining whether the petitioner had taken out a policy of insurance as required by the aforesaid act and to investigate the insurable value of the property insured and/or required to be insured. By the second notice dated 11th August, 1966 the petitioner was informed that it appeared that the petitioner had failed to insure goods to the extent indicated in the said notice and had thereby evaded payment of insurance premium amounting to Rs. 5450/-, The petitioner was directed to show cause in writing why a final determination should not be made under sub-section (1) of section 8 and section 11 of the Emergency Risks (Factories) Insurance Act, 1962, for the aforesaid amount. The petitioner is the proprietor of Nandi and Co. The petitioner; submitted an application for insurance under Emergency Risks (Factories)Insurance Scheme in terms of paragraph 6 of the said scheme. In terms of the: form in which the application was made, according to the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled to the policy for such properties of the insurable value as the amount paid under the challan bore in the premium due to be issued and the petitioner was not asked to make a further application in respect of the balance of the insurable value of the property which might remain uncovered. Therefore, according to the petitioner no further enquiry had been made from the petitioner. No policy was however issued, and according to the petitioner as no policy had been issued no claim under the policy could be made from the petitioner in terms of the scheme it has been stated that there was further correspondence between the petitioner and the authorities concerned, which it is not necessary to set out in detail. Thereafter on 17th February, 1966 the chief Enforcement Officer issued a notice which is annexure "d" and is the subject-matter of challenge in this writ application. The petitioner states the petitioner appeared before the authorities and thereafter on 11th August, 1966 the order or the communication which is annexure "e" and which is also under challenge was issued. Thereafter on the 26th of August, 1966 the petitioner moved this application and obtained a rule nisi and an interim order upon furnishing security, the petitioner also had obtained another rule nisi in Civil rule No. 2252 (W) of 1966 on the 22nd august, 1966, both these applications were heard together. There has not yet been any determination of any liability of any amount against the petitioner. Only one contention was urged in this application, namely, no action could be taken under the Emergency Risks (Factories) Insurance Act, 1962 in as much as said Act being a temporary statute had already expired. Upon the aggression by the Chinese Military force on the northern frontier of India, the President issued a Proclamation under Article 352 (1) of the Constitution declaring that a great emergency existed threatening the security of India. The said Emergency Proclamation continued in force until it was revoked under article 352 (2) of the Constitution by a subsequent Proclamation issued on the 10th of January, 1968. The point that was urged was that after that date no action could be taken under the said act, namely, the Emergency Risks (Factories) Insurance Act, 1962 and under the scheme framed there under. For the purpose of making provision for the insurance of certain property in india against damage by enemy action during the period of emergency Parliament enacted the Emergency Risks (Factories) Insurance Act, 1962. The said Act came into force on the 19th of december, 1962. Section 3 specified the factories insurable under the scheme to be framed under the Act. Section 8 authorised the Central Government to obtain information. The said section provides as follows : "8. Power of Central Government to obtain information (1) Any person authorised in this behalf by the Central government may, for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the owner or occupier of any property required to be insured under the Act has taken out a policy of insurance as required by this act in respect of such property, or for the purpose of investigating the insurable value of any property insured, or required to be insured, or proposed for insurance under this Act, or for the purpose of estimating the damage suffered by any property insured under this Act. (a) require the owner or occupier of the property, or any person carrying on in India, the business of fire insurance in respect of the property, to submit to him such accounts, books or other documents or to furnish to him such information as he may reasonably think necessary, or (b) at any reasonable time, enter any premises comprising or containing the property, inspect such premises of property, and require any person found on such premises who is for the time being in charge thereof, or in control thereof, or whom he believes to be in possession of information relevant to his investigation, to produce to him and allow him to examine such accounts, books or other documents as he may think necessary or to furnish to him such other information as he may reasonably think necessary. (2) Whoever willfully obstructs any person in the exercise of his powers under this section or fails without reasonable excuse to comply with any demand made there under shall, in respect of each occasion on which any such obstruction or failure takes place, be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees. (3) Whoever, in purporting to comply with his obligations under this section, knowingly or recklessly makes a statement false in a material particular shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees. (4) Where in any proceedings in respect of a contravention of section 5 in relation to any factory, it is proved, in relation to that factory- (a) that a demand for the production of a policy of insurance issued in accordance with the Scheme insuring the owner or occupier of the factory was duly made under this section and was not complied with, and (b) that the person making the demand was nut satisfied that there was such a policy in existence it shall be presumed, except in so far as the contrary is proved, that the said section 5 was being contravened in relation to that factory at the time when the demand was made and continued to be contravened in relation to that factory at all times thereafter",
(2.) SECTION 11 provides for recovery of premiums unpaid. Sub-section (3) of section 1 is material and it is necessary to set out the same : " (3) It shall remain in force during the period of operation of the Proclamation of Emergency issued on the 26th october, 1962, and for such further period as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be the period of emergency far the purposes of this Act, but its expiry shall not affect anything done or omitted to be done before such expiry and section 6 of the General Clauses act, 1897 (10 of 1897), shall apply up on the expiry of this Act as if it had been repealed by a Central Act".
(3.) PURSUANT to this Act a scheme was framed, it is not necessary in view of the fact that only one point was urged in this case, though several points were taken in the petition, to refer in detail to the said scheme. In clarification of the point urged in support of this application Mr. Dutt formulated four points as additional grounds to the petition and I allowed his client to agitate these joints, which are as follows : "i. For that in view of the constitutional provision in Article 358, leading to automatic lapse of emergency legislation, the standard saving clause of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 cannot be construed to save a temporary statute enacted for the period of emergency ii. For that the cloak of immunity embodied in words of Article 358 "except as respects things done or omitted to be done before the laws so ceases to have effect" makes section 6 of the General clauses Act of doubtful validity with regard to Emergency legislation. III. For that in view of the well accepted principle that the effect of expiration of the temporary statutes is a matter of construction, the principle of repeal embodied in the Section 6 of the General Clauses Act has no application to the expiry of a temporary statute. IV. For that the Emergency Risks (Factories) Insurance Act, 1962, Emergency risks (Goods) Insurance Act, 1962 being a temporary Act expired on the withdrawal of the Proclamation of emergency by the President on 10th january, 1968, and as such there is no person authorised by the Central Government to determine the evaded premium and to collect the Same as an arrear of land revenue". ;