P V SIVARAJAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been doing business as an exporter of coir products to foreign countries for the last twenty years. On July 4, 1958, he applied to respondent 2, the Chairman, Coir Board, Ernakulam, requesting that he should be registered as an established exporter. This application was accompanied by an income-tax clearance certificate and attested copies of bills of lading. Respondent 2 declined to register the petitioner on the ground that his application was defective inasmuch as the requisite certificate regarding his financial status had not been produced and no evidence had been given to show that he had exported the minimum quantity required (500 Cwts.). The petitioner was told that unless he complied with the requirements asked for within seven days his application would be rejected without further notice. The petitioner found that he could not comply with the directions issued by respondent 2 and so it became impossible for the petitioner to get registration and licence applied for by him. That is why he filed the present petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution and prayed for the issue of a writ or order in the nature of mandamus to direct the second respondent to grant the petitioner registration and licence as applied for by him and to prohibit or restrain the said respondent from acting on, or implementing, the rules issued under the Coir Industry Act 1953 by issue of a writ of certiorari, prohibition or such other writ or order appropriate to protect his rights. The petitioner also prayed that "if found necessary" the said rules should be declared to be ultra vires the powers of the Central Government and invalid being in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Arts, 14 and 19 of the Constitution. The Union of India has been impleaded as respondent 1 to the petition.

(2.) Before dealing with the points raised by the petition it would be necessary to refer briefly to the provisions of the Coir Industry Act, 1953 (45 of 1953), hereinafter called the Act, and the rules framed under it in 1958. This Act was enacted by the Parliament because it was thought expedient in the public interest that the Union should take under its control the coir industry. (S. 2). Section 4 of the Act provides for the establishment and constitution of the Coir Board and S. 10 enumerates its functions and duties. Under S. 10(1) it shall be the duty of the Board to promote by such measures as it thinks fit the development under the control of the Central Government of the coir industry. Sub-section (2) enumerates the measures which the Board may take with the object of developing the coir industry without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-s. (1). Amongst the measures thus enumerated, sub-s. (2)(b) refers to the regulation under the supervision of the Central Government of the production of husks, coir yarn and coir products by registering coir spindles and looms for manufacturing coir products, as also manufacturers of coir products, licensing exporters of coir, coir yarn and coir products and taking such other appropriate steps as may be prescribed. Sub-section (2)(g) refers to the promotion of co-operative organisation among producers of husks coir fibre and coir yarn and manufacturers if coir Products, and sub-s. (2)(i) refers to the licensing of retting places and warehouses and otherwise regulating the stocking and sale of coir fibre, coir yarn and coir products both for internal market and for exports Section 26(1) confers on the Central Government power to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act subjects to the condition of previous publication. Sub-section (2) enumerates the matters in respect of which rules may be made, in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by sub-s. (1). Sub-section (2)(k) refers inter alia to the registration of manufactures of coir products and the conditions for such registration and the grant or issue of licences under the Act and sub-s. (2)(1) deals with the form of applications for registration and licenses under the Act and the fee, if any, to be paid in respect of any such applications.

(3.) Under the powers conferred by S. 26 the Central Government framed rules in 1958. For the purposes of the present petition it would be relevant to refer to Rr. 17 to 22. Rule 17 deals with registration and licensing of exports; and it provides that no person shall, after the coming into force of the rule, export coir fibre, coir yarn or coir products unless he has been registered as an exporter and has obtained an export licence under these rules. The proviso deals with exemptions with which we are not concealed. Rule 18 lays down that any person who has in any of the three years immediately preceding the commencement of the rules exported not less, than twenty-five tons of coir yarn or coir products other than coir rope, or exported any quantity of coir fibre or coir rope, may be registered as an exporter of coir yarn, coir products other than coir rope or coir fibre or coir rope as the case may be. Rule 19 provides for the registration of persons other than those covered by R. 18 and it lays down inter alia that such persons may be registered as exporters of coir yarn if, during the period of twelve months, immediately preceeding the date of application, a minimum quantity of twenty five tons of coir yarn had been rehanked or baled in a factory owned or otherwise possessed by the applicant and registered under the Indian Factories Act, 1948, or, if the applicant has had a total purchase turnover of one hundred tons of coir yarn. The proviso to this rule authorises the Chairman by notification to exempt from the operation of this rule any co-operative society the members of which are owners of industrial establishments or any central Co-operative Marketing Society, Rules 20 and 22 prescribe the mode of making an application for registration as an export and for licence respectively while R. 2 provides for the cancellation of registration. The present petition does not challenge the validity of any of the provisions of the Act. It, however, seeks to challenge the vires of Rr. 18, 19, 20(l)(a), 2 and 22(a).