1954 (10) TMI 37 - SUPREME COURT

Whether the appellants could claim any fundamental right under article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution which can be said to have been violated by the impugned legislation?

Whether the Act has deprived them of any ’property’ which would attract the operation of article 31 of the Constitution?

Held that:- Appeal allowed. The Australian Constitution indeed has no provision like article 19(1) (g) of the Indian Constitution and it is certainly an arguable point as to whether the rights of individuals alone are dealt with in article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution leaving the freedom of trade and commerce, meaning by that expression ’only the free passage of persons and goods’ within or without a State to be dealt with under article 301 and the following articles.

We have thus indicated only the points that could be raised and the possible views that could be taken but as we have said already, we do not desire to express any final opinion on these points as it is unnecessary for purposes of the present case. The result is that in our opinion the appeals should be allowed and the judgment of the High Court set aside A writ in the nature of mandamus shall issue against the respondents in these appeals restraining them from enforcing the provisions of the U. P. State Road Transport Act, 1951, against the appellants or the men working under them.