Case: District Collector Of Hyderabad &amp; Ors Vs. M/S. Ibrahim &amp; Co. Etc

Government was plainly contrary to the statutory provisions contained in the Andhra Pradesh Sugar Dealers Licensing Order and the Sugar Control Order, it was not protected under Article 358 of the Constitution.11. Nor had it the protection under Article 359. On November 3, 1962 the President issued an order in exercise of the power under Article 359, that "the right of any person to move any Court for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Article 14, Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution shall remain suspended for the period during which the Proclamation of Emergency issued under Clause (1) of Article 352 thereof on the 26th October, 1962 is in force, if such person has been deprived of any such rights under the Defence of India Ordinance, 1962 (4 of 1962) or any rule or order made thereunder." Only if the impugned order was shown to be made under the authority reserved by the Defence of India Ordinance or rules made thereunder, the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a petition for impairment of the guarantee under article 14 may be excluded. But the action was not shown to be taken under the Defence of India Ordinance or under the rule or order made thereunder.12. Again it may be pointed out that under Article 301 the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India is declared free. That freedom is declared in the widest terms and applies to all forms of trade, commerce and intercourse. But it is subject to certain restrictions of which Arts. 304 and 305 are relevant. It is provided by Article 304:"Notwithstanding anything in Art. 301 or Art. 303, the Legislature of a State may by law-(a) x x x x x x x x x xx x x x x x x x x x(b) impose such reasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse with or within that State as may be required in the public interest:Provided that no Bill or amendment for the purposes of Clause (b) shall be introduced or moved in the Legislature of a State without the previous sanction of the President."13. It is also provided by Article 305 that the existing law or laws which may be made by the State providing for State monopolies, i.e.,relating to any matter as is referred to in sub-clause (ii) of Clause (6) of Article 19, are outside the guarantee of Article 301. In the present case the State had not assumed a monopoly to deal in sugar. It had granted monopoly to a Central Consumers Co-operative Stores which was not a corporation owned or controlled by the State within the meaning of Article 19 (6) (ii). The order was challenged on the ground that it trenches upon the freedom of trade and commerce guaranteed by Article 301 of the Constitution.By Article 304 even by legislative restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse with or within the State may only be imposed, if such restrictions are reasonable and are required in the public interest and the Bill or amendment is introduced or moved in the Legislature of a State with the previous sanction of the President. Obviously the guarantee under Article 301 cannot be taken away by executive action. The guarantee under Article 301 which imposes a restriction upon legislative power of the Parliament or the State Legislature and the declaration of freedom is not merely an abstract declaration. There is no reason to think that while placing a restriction upon legislative power the Constitution guaranteed freedom in the abstract and not of the individuals. Article 301 of the Constitution is borrowed almost verbatim from Section 92 of the Commonwealth of Australian Constitution Act 63 and 64 Vict. c. 12 of 1900. In dealing with the contention that no individual right was guaranteed by Section 92 of the Commonwealth of Australian Constitution Act the Judicial Committee in Commonwealth of Australia v. Bank of New South Wales, (1950) AC 235 observed at p. 305:"The necessary implications of these decisions (Kames v. Cowan-(1932) AC 542 and James v. The Commonwealth of Australia-(1936) AC 578) are important. First may be mentioned an argument strenuously maintained on this appeal that Section 92 of the Constitution does not guarantee the freedom of individuals. Yet James was an individual and James vindicated his freedom in hard-won fights. Clearly there is here a misconception. It is true as has been said more than once in the High Court, that Section 92 does not create any new juristic rights but it does give the citizen of State or Commonwealth, as the case may be, the right to ignore, and , if necessary, to call on the judicial power to help him to resist, legislative or executive action which offends against the section. And this is just what James successfully did."14. Our Constituent Assembly borrowed the concept of freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse from the Australian Constitution. It is true that the limitations upon the amplitude of the guarantee are not expressed in Section 92 of the Australian Constitution, as are to be found in our Constitution. Again, there is no guarantee in the Australian Constitution of a fundamental right to carry on trade. But this departure from the scheme of the Australian Constitution does not alter the true character of the guarantee and it cannot be inferred that the Constitution imposed restrictions upon Legislative power, but denied to the individuals affected by unauthorised assumption of executive power the right to challenge the exercise of that power. A vital constitutional provision cannot be so construed as to make a mockery of the declared guarantee and the constitutional restrictions on the power of the Legislature. If the power of the State Legislature is restricted in the manner provided by Article 301, but within limits provided by Articles 303 to 305, it would be impossible to hold that the State by executive order can do something which it is incompetent to do by legislation.15.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]8. It is true that under article 352 of the Constitution, the President declared a state of emergency on October 26, 1962. By Article 358 while a proclamation of emergency is in operation, nothing in Article 19 shall restrict the power of the State (as defined in Part III) to make any law or to take any executive action which the State would but for the provisions contained in that Part be competent to make or to take. By Article 359 the President is authorised, where a proclamation of emergency was in operation, to declare that the right to move any Court for the enforcement of such of the rights conferred by Part III as may be mentioned shall remain suspended for the period during which the proclamation was in force or for such shorter period as may be specified in the order.9. On the issue of the proclamation of emergency the State is, for the duration of the emergency, competent to enact legislation, notwithstanding that it impairs the freedoms guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution. The State is also competent to take executive action, which the State would, but for the provisions contained in Article, 19 of the Constitution, be competent to take. The impugned order in this case was issued while the proclamation of emergency was in operation. The respondents could not challenge the validity of any law enacted by the State Legislature so long as the proclamation of emergency was in operation on the ground that it impaired the freedoms guaranteed by Article 19. They could not also challenge any executive action which, but for the provisions contained in Article 19, the State was competent to take.10. In the present case, the State did not enact any legislation impairing the fundamental right of the respondents to carry on business which is guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (g), they proceeded to make an executive order.But the executive order immune from attack is only that order which the State was competent, but for the provisions contained in Article 19, to make. Executive action of the State Government which is otherwise invalid is not immune from attack, merely because a proclamation of emergency is in operation when it is taken. Since the order of the State Government was plainly contrary to the statutory provisions contained in the Andhra Pradesh Sugar Dealers Licensing Order and the Sugar Control Order, it was not protected under Article 358 of the Constitution.11. Nor had it the protection under Article 359. On November 3, 1962 the President issued an order in exercise of the power under Article 359, that "the right of any person to move any Court for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Article 14, Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution shall remain suspended for the period during which the Proclamation of Emergency issued under Clause (1) of Article 352 thereof on the 26th October, 1962 is in force, if such person has been deprived of any such rights under the Defence of India Ordinance, 1962 (4 of 1962) or any rule or order made thereunder." Only if the impugned order was shown to be made under the authority reserved by the Defence of India Ordinance or rules made thereunder, the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a petition for impairment of the guarantee under article 14 may be excluded. But the action was not shown to be taken under the Defence of India Ordinance or under the rule or order madeConstituent Assembly borrowed the concept of freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse from the Australian Constitution. It is true that the limitations upon the amplitude of the guarantee are not expressed in Section 92 of the Australian Constitution, as are to be found in our Constitution. Again, there is no guarantee in the Australian Constitution of a fundamental right to carry on trade. But this departure from the scheme of the Australian Constitution does not alter the true character of the guarantee and it cannot be inferred that the Constitution imposed restrictions upon Legislative power, but denied to the individuals affected by unauthorised assumption of executive power the right to challenge the exercise of that power. A vital constitutional provision cannot be so construed as to make a mockery of the declared guarantee and the constitutional restrictions on the power of the Legislature. If the power of the State Legislature is restricted in the manner provided by Article 301, but within limits provided by Articles 303 to 305, it would be impossible to hold that the State by executive order can do something which it is incompetent to do by legislation.