TMI Blog1991 (2) TMI 415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the validity of the Act above mentioned and certain notifications issued thereunder were challenged in Civil Appeal Nos. 450 and 451 of 1966 and 542 of 1964. These Civil appeals were disposed of by a judgment of this Court dated 6.1.1967 in State of Mysore and Ors. v. Hanumiah. By the said judgment this Court repelled the contentions then put forward. The validity of certain provisions of the impugned Act had then been challenged on the footing that the said provisions as well as the rules made and the notifications issued thereunder imposed unreasonable restrictions on the fundamental right of the petitioners to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Again, the Mysore High Court in Mohammed Hussain v. State of Mysore W.P. 45 of 1971 and this Court in Syed Ahmed Agha v. State AIR1975SC1443 were called upon to consider contentions as to the validity of certain amendments effected by Mysore Act 29 of 1969 to the impugned Act, in the light of the provisions of Articles 301 to 304 of the Constitution of India. The contentions were repelled with the result that the statutory regulations providing for protection to readers by the establishment of reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amended by the Karnataka Act 29 of 1969. But these amendments are not relevant for our present purposes. There were further amendments effected to the Act by Karnataka Act 33 of 1979. The petitioner is challenging the amendments carried out by this Act. The principal amendments carried out were, briefly, these. References to 'Mysore' were replaced by references to 'Karnataka'. In the preamble, in addition to the to 'silk worm seed' and 'cocoon', reference was added to 'silk yarn'. Definitions of 'silk yarn' and various categories thereof were inserted. Section 5A was introduced under which no person could be in possession of silk yarn in excess of a prescribed quantity unless he is a reelers, a licensed trader, a twister, a weaver or a person authorised in writing by the prescribed officer. Section 10A provided for the establishment of silk exchanges at specified places. It enabled the Government to appoint for each silk exchange, a silk Market Officer and also to constitute a marketing committee with the Market Officer as the Chairman and With representatives of reelers, twisters and traders for regulating the conduct of business in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alled the Central Silk Board with a Constitution as set out in Sub-section (3). The functions of the Board are set out in section B, which may be set out: (1) It shall be the duty of the Board to promote the development of the silk industry by such measures as it thinks fit. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the measures referred to therein may provide for- (a) undertaking, assisting or encouraging scientific, technological and economic research; (b) devising means for improved methods of mulberry cultivation rearing, developing and distributing healthy silkworm seeds, reeling or, as the case may be, spinning of silkworm cocoons and silk waste, improving the quality and production of raw silk, if necessary, by making it compulsory for all raw silk to be marketed only after the same has been tested and graded in properly equipped raw silk conditioning houses: (c) x x x x x (d) improving the marketing of raw silk; (e) the collection of statistics from such persons as may be prescribed; (f) carrying out any other duties which may be vested in the Board under rules made under this Act. The Board has also a duty to advise the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... power to enact the impugned Acts: 14. It seems to us that this argument is bereft of substance. It is now well settled by a series of pronouncements of the Supreme Court commencing with Tika Ramji and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. [1956]1SCR393 down to the decision in Ganga Sagar Corporation Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. [1980]1SCR769 that merely because an industry is controlled industry as declared by Parliament under Entry 52 in List I, the State is not deprived of its legitimate power to legislate within its own sphere in respect of such industry. Referring to the scope of Entry 52 of List I, in the context of legislation dealing with regulation of supply and purchase of sugar cane required for use in sugar factories. Supreme Court in Tika Ramji's [1956]1SCR393 , case observed: [Ibid Note 12 pages 695-696]: Industry in the wide sense of the term would be capable of comprising three different aspects: (1) raw materials which are an integral part of the industrial process, (2) the process of manufacture or production, and (3) the distribution of the products of the industry. The raw materials would be goods which would be comprised in Entry 27 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Legislation in regard to raw materials would be permissible under Entry 27 of List 2, notwithstanding a declaration of the industry under Entry 52 to be one within the purview of parliamentary legislation. The process of manufacture or production can be legislated on by States under Entry 24 of List 2 so long as the industry is not a controlled industry within the meaning of Entry 7 or Entry 52 of List I. So far as the third aspect viz. the distribution of the products of the industry are concerned, the State Legislature would be quite competent to legislate thereto in regard thereto under Entry 27 of List II. However, when the industry is also a controlled industry legislation in regard to the products of the industry would be permissible by both the Central and the State Legislatures by virtue of Entry 33 of List 3. This in short is the decision of the High Court based, as already pointed out on a series of decisions of this Court. Observations by this Court to a like effect in Calcutta Gas Co. (P) Ltd. v. State (1961)IILLJ431SC may also be seen. We entirely agree with this view. 8. On behalf of the appellants/petitioners, Shri Soli Sorabji contended that the validity of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of the earlier ruling of this Court affect the control over these raw materials. This is perhaps the reason why the industry did not challenge the provisions of the 1959 Act, when it was originally enacted, on the ground that is now being put forward. The present legislation, as a result of the amendments, controls the supply and distribution of the goods produced by the industry. As rightly pointed out by the High Court this is the third aspect of the industry which falls outside the purview of the control postulated under Entry 52. In other words, though the production and manufacture of raw silk cannot be legislated upon by the State Legislature in view of the provisions of the Central Act and the declaration in Section 2 thereof, that declaration and Entry 52 do not in any way limit the powers of the State Legislature to legislate in respect of the goods produced by the silk industry. To interpret Entry 52 otherwise would render Entry 33 in List 3 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution otiose and meaningless. In this view of the matter the limitation contained in Entry 52 does not affect the validity of the present legislation. This is an aspect which was not touch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
