M KEVALCHAND SOWCAR Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a pawnbroker, who has obtained a licence under the provisions of the Madras Pawnbrokers Act, XXIII of 1943. The relief, the petitioner asked for in the application he filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, is the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to restrain the Sub Magistrate, poonamallee, from proceeding with the enquiry against the petitioner 'initiated under Section 15 (1) of the pawnbrokers Act. The constitutional validity of the pawnbrokers Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was challenged by the petitionerand in particular he challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 3, 4, 6, 10, 13 and 20 of the Act. During the arguments, however, the validity of other sections of the Act also was assailed.

(2.) IT may not be necessary to set out the events that led up to the institution of these proceedings by the petitioner. The question debated before me was, whether the Act as a whole or at least many of its provisions are void and unenforceable, and whether they come within the ban imposed by Article 13 of the constitution.

(3.) THE petitioner contended that the Act as a whole was discriminatory since, it singled out only pawn-brokers among money-lenders for discriminatory treatment. That the petitioner contended, brought the Act as a whole within the mischief of article 14 of the Constitution. Even if Article 14 was not contravened, the petitioner urged, many of the provisions of the Act offended Article 19 (1) (g) of the constitution.