Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2014 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 806 - HC - Indian LawsWhether the Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirement for Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012 and the notifications issued pursuant thereto are in any manner ultra vires Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India or violative of any other provisions of law – Constitutional Validity of Order & Notification – Restriction on sale of Unregistered BIS products – Reasonable Restriction - Right to Carry on Business – Article 19(1)(g) - Held that:- The notification restricting the sale from 3rd July 2013 onwards of the products which are not registered with the BIS department is in the interest of the people at large because if something goes wrong then nobody would be held responsible for the same and in the process, the innocent consumer will suffer – This is not a case where the parallel imports are completely stopped or banned but are permitted subject to certain restrictions like submitting the products for testing to the BIS recognized labs to comply with the Order, 2012. Article 19(1)(g) read with Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India spells out fundamental rights given to the citizens to practice any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business so long as it is not prevented or is within the frame work of the regulation, if any - The restrictions permitted to be imposed by sub-clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 must be read as a whole, each throwing light on the scope of the other and that the common thread running through these several provisions was the ground of public policy understood in a comprehensive sense - Every public statute was enacted in the public interest and, therefore, both public policy and public interest demanded its enforcement - The public interest justifying the restrictions might, therefore, arise from the very provisions of the enactment and might be grounded on the necessity to prevent its evasion. The restrictions permitted by sub-clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 follow a pattern i.e. they are imposed by the legislature for the reasons of public policy - The aspect of public policy involved in the facts of each of the several fundamental rights conferred by the several sub-clauses of Article 19(1) might defer but one underlined principle, requirement of public policy, runs through various clauses of restrictions and pervades the scheme – There is no justifiable reason found to declare the impugned Order, 2012 and the consequent notifications as ultra vires - The petition fails and is rejected – Decided against the petitioner.
|