RAMKISHAN AGARWAL Vs. COLLECTOR JABALPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the constitutional validity of the Madhya Pradesh Gramin Rin Vimukti Tatha Rin sthagan Adhiniyam, 1975 (No. 37 of 1975) has been challenged. It is contended that the different provisions of the impugned Act are ultra vires the constitution. It seeks a writ to restrain the respondents from enforcing their orders served on the petitioners through the Patwari to produce all the pledged ornaments before the Sub-divisional Officer, Jabalpur.

(2.) THE petitioners carry on the business of money-lending. They advance money to the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, to small and marginal farmers and also to others who are not covered by the Act. It is averred in the petition that on July 18, 1976, respondents Nos. 3 and 4, who are Patwaris, approached the petitioners and told them that they were required to produce all the pledged ornaments involved in their money-lending business end the account books before the Sub-divisional Officer, Jabalpur, at Camp barela on July 25, 1976, with a view to return them. The Patwaris took their signatures on a piece of paper in token of the intimation given to them, of these orders of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (the Collector and the S. D. O. respectively ). The Patwaris refused to supply them with a copy of the order, but told them that notices were being issued to them for production of the ornaments as per the orders of the Collector and the Sub-divisional Officer, Jabalpur.

(3.) THE petitioners contend that the State Government had no legislative competence to pass the impugned Act, the subject-matter of which is not covered by any of the Entries, either in List II or List III. The effect of the Act is to extinguish the debts due to the debtors enumerated in the Act and to enable such debtors to receive back their pledged movable and mortgaged immovable properties without repaying the debts, for which they pledged them as security. The impugned Act does not take into account the extent of property and the paying capacity of the debitors. It extinguishes their debts even though their properties may be worth more than the debts and they may have the capacity to discharge their debts. There is no limit on the amount of debt, which will be discharged. Thus, the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (f) and (g) and also under Article 301 of the Constitution are violated. The Act robs or deprives the petitioners of their money without anything being paid to them in return, either fully or proportionately, either immediately or by instalments, and thus infringes the rights guaranteed by Article 19 of the constitution.