Sh. Ravinder Nath and Others vs The State of Himachal Pradesh

Devinder Gupta, J.—Petitioners have challenged the validity of the Himachal Pradesh Resin and Resin Products (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The challenge in the main is about the ''nonopolies created in favour of the State in regard to the resio and resin products.

Section 4 of the Act provides that on and after the commencement of the Act no person shall tap resin or manufacture any resin product or export any resin or resin products, unless he is registered under the Act. It also provides that no person shall sell resin to any person other than the State Government or its authorised officer and no person other than the State Government or authorised officer shall purchase resin from any tapper/owner of resin. The Act further provided that no person other than the State Government or an authorised officer shall transport resin except otherwise than as provided in the Act. The Act also makes provision of fixing up of prices at which State Government is to purchase the resin.

The petitioners were earlier engaged in the business of extraction of resin and its sale within and outside the State of Himachal Pradesh. The challenge in the main is based on their fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to carry on trade or business. Article 19(6) however, permits State monopoly in regard to any trade or business to the exclusion, complete or paitial, of all others in that behalf. Such monopolies are permitted is clear from the Cooverjee B. Bharucha Vs. The Excise Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner, Ajmer and Others, ; Dosa Satyanarayanamurty etc. Vs. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, and Daruka and Co. Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Others,

The other ground of attack is the legislative competence of the State Legislature to pass the impugned legislation. Entry 26 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution relates to trade and commerce within the State subject to the provisions of Entry 33 of List III. The petitioners have not brought to our notice any parlia-mentary legislation that occupied the field covered by the impugned enactment. As such, the State Legislature was competent to pass the impugned legislation.

Another ground of challenge was that prior permission of the President of India, as required in Part XIII of the Constitution, was not obtained. We find that the State Legislature was competent to pass the legislation, still the bill was reserved for the consideration of the President of India under Article 200 of the Constitution and the President after consideration gave his assent on May 22, 1981.

The grounds on which the validity of the Act has been challenged have no force and we see no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.