9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the circular dated 19.5.1995. 2. Constitutional validity of the circular dated 30.3.1989. 3. Alleged violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Comprehensive Details: 1. Constitutional Validity of the Circular Dated 19.5.1995: The circular dated 19.5.1995 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Kerala directed that for the distribution of pumpsets under the Comprehensive Coconut Development Programme and other similar schemes, M/S Kerala Agro Industries Corporation (KAICO) and Regional Agro Industries Corporation (RAIDCO) would arrange the supply of pumpsets in specified districts, while in the remaining districts, supply would be effected by private dealers along with KAICO and RAIDCO. The appellants challenged this circular, arguing it violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution by imposing unreasonable restrictions on private dealers' right to trade. The Supreme Court upheld the circular, stating that it did not infringe on the fundamental right to trade as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g), and the restriction was reasonable and aimed at ensuring genuine sales and proper after-sales service. 2. Constitutional Validity of the Circular Dated 30.3.1989: The circular dated 30.3.1989 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies directed that all Land Development Banks, District Co-operative Banks, and Service Co-operative Banks in Kerala should patronize RAIDCO for at least 75% of their agro-machine purchases. The High Court upheld this circular, and the Supreme Court found it justified, noting RAIDCO's extensive network and dealership of various pumpset manufacturers, which ensured better service and pricing. 3. Alleged Violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution: The appellants contended that the circulars violated their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) by imposing unreasonable restrictions on their trading activities and discriminated against farmers in the specified districts, thus violating Article 14. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, stating that the restrictions were reasonable, aimed at preventing malpractices, ensuring genuine sales, and providing proper after-sales service. The Court emphasized that the government has the right to select dealers for its schemes to ensure effective implementation and that such selection does not constitute a violation of fundamental rights or discrimination under Articles 14 and 19. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment and validating the circulars. The Court concluded that the restrictions imposed by the circulars were reasonable, aimed at ensuring the effective implementation of government schemes, and did not infringe upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
|
