AISWARYA FREIGHT CARRIER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

(2.) In this writ petition, prayer has been made for issuing a Writ of Mandamus to direct the first respondent to enforce the Hire Purchase Act, 1972. It is the case of the petitioner that the Hire Purchase Act, 1972 (Act 26 of 1972) received the assent of the President more than 30 years back but the Act has not been enforced. Section 1(3) of the Act says that the Act will come into force on such date as the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette appoint. It is the contention of the petitioner that the object of the Act is to define and regulate the rights and duties of the parties to hire purchase agreement on the matter connected therewith or incidental therewith and the provisions have been made with the aforesaid object in mind but the Central Government has not issued any notification for enforcing the Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that a Writ of Mandamus should be issued to the appropriate Government directing it to enforce the Act from a particular date.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision reported in AIR 1969 SC 1306 (Praga Tools Corpn. v. C.V. Imanual and others). The aforesaid decision is an authority for the proposition that a Writ of Mandamus lies to seek enforcement of a statutory or public duty imposed on the Government by a statue. However, this decision is not the authority for the proposition that the Court has got power to issue such a positive direction to the Government to issue notification to the effect that a particular statute should come into force from a particular date.