TMI Blog1971 (12) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Magistrate of the First Class Saugor for imposition of a penalty on the respondents. The matter arises thus. Chhotahhai Jethabhai Patel, a partnership firm of which the second respondent, Jhaverbhai Bhulabhai Patel is a partner, carried on business on a fairly large scale as manufacturers of bidis at various places in the State of Madhya Pradesh including Saugor. Being unable to secure sufficient quantities of tendu leaves grown in the forest units in the State, the firm took leases for the collection of such leaves in the States of Bihar Maharashtra. They actually imported tendu leaves under two railway consignments from Bihar to Saugor. They informed the Divisional Forest Officer about the same and asked for permission for transpor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t transport of tendu leaves whether grown in the State or outside the State was completely prohibited by s. 5(2) of the Act and regulation and control of transport of such imported leaves was necessary for the successful working of the State monopoly in the trade of tendu leaves envisaged by the Act. Further the Act did not prohibit the import of tendu leaves and was not therefore violative of Arts. 31, 301 and 304 of the Constitution and the control of movement of tendu leaves after their import from another State was in no way repugnant to Arts. 301 and 304. The High Court rejected the contentions of the State. Hence the appeal. In order to find out whether the action of the Forest Officer was justified, we have to look into the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contravention of the Act. Sub-s. (2) of the section allowed a grower of tendu leaves to transport them from any place within the unit wherein such leaves had grown to any other place in that unit and tendu leaves purchased from the State Government or any officer or agent of the Government by any person for manufacture of bidis within the State or by any person for sale outside the State could be transported by such person in accordance with the terms and conditions of a permit to be issued in that behalf. S. 7 empowered the State Government to fix prices at which tendu leaves were to be, purchased by it or its agent and under s. 9 the State Government or their authorised officer or agent was to be, bound to purchase at the price fixed und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... culars are to be contained in a permit in form N . It was contended on behalf of the State that the High Court had gone wrong in taking the view that the object of the Act was confined to trading in tendu leaves grown in the State as disclosed by the above provisions. It was urged that the embargo on purchase and transport of tendu leaves by s. 5 was necessary for creation and preservation of the State monopoly in tendu leaves. It was submitted that there was nothing in the Act, which on the face of it showed that tendu leaves mentioned in the different provisions were to be confined to leaves grown in the State. It was further submitted that unless the State had the power to check the purchase of tendu leaves from outside the State a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich it seeks to cure. At the same time to expect the manufacturer to get permits issued to his sattedars for distribution by them to the innumerable mazdoors of comparatively small quantities of these leaves would not only be unreasonable but frustrating. In that case there was no question of import of any tendu leaves from outside the State or the issue of any permits in that regard. What was objected to was the insistence upon transport permits for the leaves to be distributed by the manufacturers to his innumerable sattedars and mazdoors under s. 5 of the Act. It was held that though the section is couched in apparently wide language, the very object of the Act, as disclosed by its long title, contains inherent limitations against a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only the provisions of the law which are integrally and essentially connected with the creation of the monopoly that are protected. The rest of the provisions which may be incidental do not fall under the, latter part of Art. 19(6) and would inevitably have to satisfy the test of the first part of Art. 19(6). It is settled law that where two constructions of a legislative provision are possible one consistent with the constitutionality of the measure impugned and the other offending the same, the Court will lean towards the first if it be compatible with the object and purpose of the impugned Act, the mischief which it sought to prevent ascertaining from relevant factors its true scope and meaning. It was in the light of this principle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
