1974 (9) TMI 114 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notification dated 26 July, 1973 issued by the State Government u/r 114(2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971.
2. Whether the formation of opinion by the State Government for the exercise of power u/r 114(2) is a justiciable issue.
3. Compliance with section 3(2)(21) and section 38 of the Defence of India Act.
4. Alleged violation of Article 14 and Article 301 of the Constitution.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Notification:
The appellants challenged the notification dated 26 July, 1973, issued by the State Government u/r 114(2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971, which prohibited the use of machinery for the production of fibre from coconut husks in the districts of Trivandrum, Quilon, and Alleppey. The notification aimed to secure the equitable distribution and availability of coconut husks at fair prices for the traditional sector.

2. Formation of Opinion by the State Government:
The appellants argued that the formation of opinion by the State Government for exercising power u/r 114(2) is a justiciable issue and that the court should examine the material on which the opinion was formed. They contended that the reasons given in the notification were erroneous and that there was no genuine application of mind by the authority. The High Court held that the appellants did not establish by material that the opinion formed by the State Government could not stand. The Supreme Court reiterated that administrative decisions must be made in good faith on relevant considerations and that the courts would inquire whether a reasonable man could have come to the decision in question.

3. Compliance with Section 3(2)(21) and Section 38 of the Defence of India Act:
The appellants contended that section 3(2)(21) of the Defence of India Act does not support Rule 114 and that section 38 of the Act was violated. The Supreme Court held that Rule 114 is in complete consonance with the powers conferred u/s 3(2)(21) and that the steps taken by the State Government were in the larger interests of labour engaged in the coir industry. The notification was issued after due care and caution, based on reliable and sufficient data obtained by proper investigation and enquiries.

4. Alleged Violation of Article 14 and Article 301:
The appellants argued that the notification offended Article 14 and Article 301 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the classification made by the State Government was reasonable and bore a nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by the impugned notification. The restrictions imposed were in the interest of the general public and were reasonable in the interest of the industry and public.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court, dismissing the appeals and directing the parties to bear their own costs. The notification was found to be valid and issued in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Defence of India Act and Rules. The formation of opinion by the State Government was not found to be arbitrary or unreasonable, and the restrictions imposed were deemed necessary and justified.