TMI Blog1970 (2) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... odities and carry on their business in the cities -of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. The State of Andhra Pradesh issued the Andhra Pradesh Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963, in exercise of the power conferred by s. 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Under that order no person may carry on business as a dealer except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued by the specified authority. Grant and renewal of licence could be refused only on grounds reduced to writing and after giving opportunity to the party to state his case. The respondents were granted licences under the Andhra Pradesh, Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963. Shortly thereafter the Central Government, in exercise of the power conferred und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sugar and were also recognized dealers under the Sugar Control Order, 1963, were by an executive fiat prevented from carrving on their business in sugar. The respondents moved petitions in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the validity of the order. The State resisted the petitions principally on the ground that the order made by the State Government was in conformity with the provisions of the Sugar Control Order and was issued in pursuance of the policy laid down by the Central Government to entrust the work of distribution of sugar exclusively to cooperative societies and thereby to eliminate in the public interest the agency of private dealers in lifting and distributing sugar. It was urged that the respondents could not seek ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecorded by Gopalakrishnan Nair, J., were confirmed. In these appeals counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh has not contended that the impugned order could be issued dither under the Andhra Pradesh Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1963, or the Sugar Control Order, 1963, issued by the Central Government. Indisputably it is an executive order made by the State Government. The State Government it is claimed acted in pursuance of the policy of the Central Government to distribute sugar through cooperative societies. But the order was still unauthorised. Under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the State Government had issued an order for distribution of sugar through licensed dealers and the respondents had obtained licences in that behalf. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te would, but for the provisions contained in Art. 19 of the Constitution, be competent to take. The impugned order in this case was issued while the proclamation of emergency was in operation. The respondents could not challenge the validity of any law enacted by the State Legislature so long as the proclamation of emergency was in operation, on the ground that it impaired the freedoms guaranteed by Art. 19. They could not also challenge any executive action which, but for the provisions contained in Art. 19, the State was competent to take. In the present case, the State did not enact any legislation impairing the -fundamental right of the respondents to carry on business which is guaranteed by Art. 19 (1) (g), they proceeded to make a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ordinance or under the rule or order made thereunder. Again it may be pointed out that under Art. 301 the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India is declared free. -That freedom is declared in the widest terms and applies to all forms of trade, commerce and intercourse. But it is subject to certain restrictions (if which Arts. 304 and 305 are relevant. It is provided by Art. 304 : Notwithstanding anything in article 301 or article 303, the Legislature of 'a State may by law- (a) ..................................... b) impose such reasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse with or within that State as may be required in the public interest Provided that no Bill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n guaranteed freedom in the abstract and not of the individuals. Article 301 of the Constitution is borrowed almost verbatim from s. 92 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 63 and 64 Vict. c. 12 of 1.900. In dealing with the contention that no individual right was guaranteed by s. 92 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act the Judicial Committee in Commonwealth of Australia v. Bank of New South Wales L.R. 1950 A. C. 235 observed at p. 305 The necessary implications of these decisions (James v. Cowan-(1932) A.C. 542-and James v. The Commonwealth of Australia-(1936) A.C. 578) are important. First may be mentioned an argument strenuously maintained on this appeal that s. 92 of the Constitution does not guarantee the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
