J MOHANLAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these petitions are carrying on business as Pawn Brokers. They have filed these petitions requesting the Court to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondents directing them not to enforce S.16 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against them in so far as the said section requires the making of declarations by the petitioners regarding the quantity of gold received by them in the course of their business. The relevant part of S.16 of the Act reads as follows :

(2.) After the Act came into force the Govt of India, being of opinion that it was necessary and expedient in the public interest so to do, in exercise of its powers under S.109 of the Act, issued a notification d.18-5-1970 exempting the State Bank of India, a subsidiary Bank as defined in Cl(k) of Sec.2 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Bank Act, 1959) and a banking company as defined in Cl(c) of S. 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, from the operation of the provisions of S.16 of the Act in so far as the said section related to the making of declarations by such banks in relation to any article or any ornament which was in their possession, - custody or control as security for any money lent or advanced by them. Because the Govt of India did not simultaneously exempt the Pawn Brokers also from the operation of S.16 of the Act, the patitioners have filed - these petitions for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus calling upon the Govt of India to treat them in the same way in which the banks referred to above, were treated by it. The petitions are contested by the Union Government.

(3.) The validity of the, Act has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Harakchand Ratanchand v. Union of India AIR. 1970 SC. 1453. In Badri Prasad v. Collector, Central Excise AIR. 1971 SC. 1170., the Supreme Court observed that the provisions of S.16 of the Act were not violative of Art. 19(1) (f) & (g) of the, Constn of India. The petitioners before the Supreme Court in the above case were pawn brokers. Their contention was negatived by the Supreme Court as follows :