9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the second proviso to sub-cl. (1) of cl. 11 of the Punjab Foodgrains Dealers Licensing and Price Control Order, 1978. 2. Legality and propriety of the action of the licensing authorities in suspending the licences held by the petitioners. 3. Allegations of mala fide and motivated actions by the licensing authorities. Summary: Issue 1: Constitutional Validity The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the second proviso to sub-cl. (1) of cl. 11 of the Punjab Foodgrains Dealers Licensing and Price Control Order, 1978, as inserted by the Punjab Foodgrains Dealers Licensing and Price Control (First Amendment) Order, 1980, on the grounds that it violated Arts. 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. The Court held that the second proviso to sub-cl. (1) of cl. 11 of the Order does not confer unguided, uncontrolled, and arbitrary power to suspend a licence. The power of suspension is a necessary concomitant of the power to grant a licence and is a measure of social control in the interests of the community. The Court found that the proviso satisfies the test of reasonableness and strikes a proper balance between the freedom of trade or business guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (g) and the social control permitted by cl. (6) of Art. 19 of the Constitution. Therefore, it does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and is not violative of Art. 14. Issue 2: Legality and Propriety of Suspension The petitioners argued that the suspension of their licences was not for any breach of the licence conditions but was motivated by extraneous considerations. The Court noted that the power of suspension conferred by the second proviso to sub-cl. (1) of cl. 11 of the Order is by way of an interim measure, pending the holding of an inquiry as to whether there is any breach which must result in cancellation of the licence. The Court found that the power of suspension is not exercisable unless there is a breach, and the breach is of such a nature that it must entail cancellation of the licence. The Court held that the orders of suspension in these cases were for breaches of conditions Nos. 4, 8, and 10 of the licence, and the question of whether the petitioners committed the breaches is a matter for inquiry by the licensing authorities under sub-cl. (1) of cl. 11 of the Order. Issue 3: Allegations of Mala Fide Actions The petitioners alleged that the suspension of their licences was mala fide and motivated, aimed at preventing them from exporting wheat from the State of Punjab to other States. The Court found that the allegations in the petitions were not supported by affidavits as required by law and lacked sufficient particulars to constitute an averment of mala fides. The Court held that the burden of establishing mala fides lies heavily on the person who alleges it, and the petitioners failed to establish the charge of bad faith or bias. The Court concluded that the impugned orders of suspension were justified and not motivated by improper motives. Conclusion: The petitions were dismissed with costs, and the Court upheld the constitutional validity of the second proviso to sub-cl. (1) of cl. 11 of the Order, as well as the legality and propriety of the suspension orders issued by the licensing authorities.
|
