(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is laid mainly against the directions implied in a memorandum, dated 22nd January 1963, issued by the deputy Superintendent, Central Excise, Jabalpur (respondent 2), to the effect that dealers have to furnish a list of ornaments of gold pledged with them and that, after 8th February 1963, they can neither return such ornaments to the owners nor accept such ornaments as security for loans.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition may be stated in a few words. After the commencement of the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules, 1963, introducing part XII-A relating to control of gold, issued under Section 3 of the Defence of india Act, 1962 (51 of 1962) dealers of Sarafa Bazar, Jabalpur, were uncertain whether that Part affected the business of advancing loans on the security of gold ornaments irrespective of their purity and, in particular, whether such ornaments, equivalent Citation: of which they were in possession as security for loans which they had already advanced could be retained by them till their loans were repaid and they were redeemed by their owners. The uncertainty arose because of the directions implied in the aforesaid memorandum which was issued by the Deputy Superintendent, central Excise, in reply to an enquiry by the Secretary of the Sarafa Bazar committee, Jabalpur, made on 22-1-1963 from the respondent 2 as to the true legal position of the three points indicated by him in the opening paragraph of his enquiry (Annexure A ).
(3.) THE petitioner, who is the President of the Sarafa Bazar Committee and who is also a dealer within the meaning of Part XII-A, contests the position indicated in the impugned memorandum and claims that he is not obliged to include the gold ornaments pledged with him in his return under Rule 126 F nor is he, either before or after 8th February 1963, inhibited by any provision in the aforesaid Part XII-A from returning such ornaments to the owners or from accepting other ornaments as security for loans.