9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Sub-section (7) of Section 16 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. 2. Constitutional validity of Sections 28, 30, and 31 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. 3. Constitutional validity of Clause (3) of the Gold Control (Identification of Customers) Rules, 1969. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutional Validity of Sub-section (7) of Section 16 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968: The petitioners contended that Sub-section (7) of Section 16 imposes an unreasonable restriction on the right of a dealer or refiner to carry on trade or business in gold, thereby violating Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The argument was based on the difficulty for a dealer or refiner to ascertain the exact weight of gold ornaments possessed by female family members, making it challenging to make a true declaration. The court, however, found this apprehension to be more imaginary than real. It noted that even non-dealers have to declare gold ornaments if the family's holdings exceed 4000 grams, including those possessed by female members. The court concluded that the provisions in Sub-section (7) do not impose unreasonable restrictions and are not violative of Article 19(1)(f) and (g). 2. Constitutional Validity of Section 28 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968: The petitioners argued that Section 28 imposes unreasonable restrictions on the business of dealers by preventing them from carrying on money-lending or banking business on the security of any article or ornament without authorization from the Administrator. They also contended that it conferred arbitrary powers on the Administrator, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The court rejected these contentions, stating that the restrictions are meant to prevent circumvention of the Act's provisions. The court noted that a dealer is not absolutely prohibited from carrying on other businesses in the same premises and that the Administrator's powers are not unfettered or arbitrary, as they are guided by the policy of the Act. Thus, Section 28 was held to be constitutionally valid. 3. Constitutional Validity of Section 30 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968: The petitioners contended that Section 30, which requires dealers to stamp and certify the purity of gold articles and ornaments, is unreasonable because dealers do not manufacture these items themselves but get them made by artisans. The court found this argument unsound, noting that artisans are under the direct control of dealers, who ultimately sell the items. The responsibility for ensuring the purity of gold rightly rests with the dealer. The court also clarified that the obligation to stamp does not apply to items purchased from certified goldsmiths. Thus, Section 30 was upheld as valid. 4. Constitutional Validity of Section 31 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968: The petitioners argued that the proviso to Section 31, which allows dealers to buy ornaments from non-dealers unless they know or have reason to believe the ornaments have not been declared, imposes an unreasonable burden. The court distinguished this from the invalidated Section 100, noting that Section 31 only requires dealers to avoid buying undeclared ornaments if they have knowledge or reason to believe they are undeclared. Thus, Section 31 was upheld as valid. 5. Constitutional Validity of Clause (3) of the Gold Control (Identification of Customers) Rules, 1969: The petitioners contended that the identification steps outlined in Rule 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(ii) are inadequate for all classes of customers, particularly villagers. The court acknowledged that while it would have been better to include provisions for identity cards issued by Gram Panchayat officers, the existing provision for identity cards issued by postal authorities is sufficient. Thus, Rule 3 was upheld as valid. Conclusion: The court held that Sections 16, 28, 30, and 31 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, and Rule 3 of the Gold Control (Identification of Customers) Rules, 1969, are constitutionally valid. The writ application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
