FIRM MAKHULAL AYODHYA PRASAD BHARATPUR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two connected writ applications by Firm Makhulal Ayodhya Prasad (No. 9) and Parmanand (No. 14) under Art. 2 6 of the Constitution by which it is prayed that the Bharatpur State Khas Industries Act of 1943 (hereinafter called the Act) and particularly secs. 9 and 18 of that Act and provisions consequential thereto are ultra vires under Art. 13 of the Constitution read with Arts. 14 and 19 (1) (g ). The case of the applicants briefly is that they are citizens of India and are carrying on trade and business in Khas and manufacturing of Khas essential oils and other products thereof in Bhratpur. Sec. 6 of the Act lays down that no person shall carry on business in Khas or manufacture Khas or Khas essential oil unless specially permitted to do so by the Bharatpur Government. Sec. 18 provides penalties for anyone carrying on business in Khas etc. or keeping in his possession any material, still utensils etc. for the purpose of manufacture of Khas essential oil in contravention of the provisions of the Act or rules or order made thereunder. The applicants' grievance is that steps are being taken, on the ground that they are not specially permitted by the State to carry on this business, to prosecute them under sec. 18 of the Act and to seize their property including Khas and apparatus for manufacture of Khas or Khas essential oil etc. The applicants contend that they have a right to carry on business there subject to reasonable restrictions and that sec. 6 does not provide any reasonable restrictions, but is an arbitrary provision practically forbidding the carrying on business of Khas manufacture or extraction of Khas essential oil in that area. It is also pointed out that there is no such provision with respect to other parts of Rajasthan besides what is now the Bharatpur District and, therefore, Art. 14 which provides equality before the law is also violated.

(2.) THE State Government in their reply apparently justified the provisions of secs. 6 and 18 of this Act. THEir stand seems to be that because of the provision of sec. 4 of the Act, the remaining provisions, particularly secs. 6 and 18 are also violated and they are entitled to act upon them.