CHANDMAL MAHAJAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by one of the money-lenders carrying on that trade in a scheduled area challenging the vires of most of the provisions in a body of regulations made by the Governor of Madhya Pradesh in exercise of the powers in Paragraph 5 (2) of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution and entitled the "Madhya Pradesh Scheduled Tribes Debt Relief Regulations 1962". They came into force on 15-8-1963 and have been subsequently amended by the amending regulations of 1963 (actually numbered 1 of 1964). There are also a body of rules made under the Regulation No. 26 of 1962. Both the original and this amending regulations have received the assent of the President; but the petitioner challenges the vires on two general grounds and besides has questioned their vires on grounds relatable to some of more important regulations.

(2.) GENERALLY the argument is twofold; first, that these regulations having been made under para 5 (2) (c) of Fifth Schedule to the Constitution by way of regulating the business of money-lending and not under Para.5(2) generally for the peace and good government of the area, these provisions could not have been made because they are so drastic as to shut out the business of money-lending altogether and not merely to limit or to control certain aspects of the conduct of that business. Secondly, the regulation being in effect restricted to claims existent on the day of the commencement, that is, 15th August 1963 and at the same time the money-lenders being categorically barred from moving the civil Courts, they are left without any remedy whatsoever in respect of claims arising after the commencement. In particular, several of the provisions are also challenged as being repugnant to some one or other of the provisions of the Constitution or to the principles of natural justice.

(3.) THE second general ground is that on the face of it these regulations as they stand leave the moneylender altogether without any remedy for the realisation of the claims arising after 15-8-1963, the date on which these came into force. Regulation No. 5 calls upon every creditor to file a separate application in respect of each of his debtors so that there could be a determination of the debts by the Debt Relief Court. This is of course with reference to the debt outstanding on the day of its coming into force. Paragraph 6 (3) expressly provides that every claim which is not submitted within the time specified in the previous sub-paragraph shall be deemed to have been discharged. THE question posed by the petitioner is what he has to do in regard to claims arising on account of money-lending transactions after the coming into force of these regulations. Frankly, as they stand, the regulations leave the creditor without any remedy for such claims. This would certainly put them on a risk in practising their business because they would have no means of realising their dues.