NANDY AND COMPANY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application under Article 286 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the notice issued under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Emergency Risks (Factories)Insurance Act, 1962, dated 17th february, 1966 issued by the Chief enforcement Officer and also notice dated 11th August, 1966, issued by the Chief enforcement Officer, Emergency Risks insurance Scheme. By the first notice dated 17th February, 1966, the petitioner was directed to produce certain documents for ascertaining whether the petitioner had taken out a policy of insurance as required by the aforesaid act and to investigate the insurable value of the property insured and/or required to be insured. By the second notice dated 11th August, 1966 the petitioner was informed that it appeared that the petitioner had failed to insure goods to the extent indicated in the said notice and had thereby evaded payment of insurance premium amounting to Rs. 5450/-, The petitioner was directed to show cause in writing why a final determination should not be made under sub-section (1) of section 8 and section 11 of the Emergency Risks (Factories) Insurance Act, 1962, for the aforesaid amount. The petitioner is the proprietor of Nandi and Co. The petitioner; submitted an application for insurance under Emergency Risks (Factories)Insurance Scheme in terms of paragraph 6 of the said scheme. In terms of the: form in which the application was made, according to the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled to the policy for such properties of the insurable value as the amount paid under the challan bore in the premium due to be issued and the petitioner was not asked to make a further application in respect of the balance of the insurable value of the property which might remain uncovered. Therefore, according to the petitioner no further enquiry had been made from the petitioner. No policy was however issued, and according to the petitioner as no policy had been issued no claim under the policy could be made from the petitioner in terms of the scheme it has been stated that there was further correspondence between the petitioner and the authorities concerned, which it is not necessary to set out in detail. Thereafter on 17th February, 1966 the chief Enforcement Officer issued a notice which is annexure "d" and is the subject-matter of challenge in this writ application. The petitioner states the petitioner appeared before the authorities and thereafter on 11th August, 1966 the order or the communication which is annexure "e" and which is also under challenge was issued. Thereafter on the 26th of August, 1966 the petitioner moved this application and obtained a rule nisi and an interim order upon furnishing security, the petitioner also had obtained another rule nisi in Civil rule No. 2252 (W) of 1966 on the 22nd august, 1966, both these applications were heard together. There has not yet been any determination of any liability of any amount against the petitioner. Only one contention was urged in this application, namely, no action could be taken under the Emergency Risks (Factories) Insurance Act, 1962 in as much as said Act being a temporary statute had already expired. Upon the aggression by the Chinese Military force on the northern frontier of India, the President issued a Proclamation under Article 352 (1) of the Constitution declaring that a great emergency existed threatening the security of India. The said Emergency Proclamation continued in force until it was revoked under article 352 (2) of the Constitution by a subsequent Proclamation issued on the 10th of January, 1968. The point that was urged was that after that date no action could be taken under the said act, namely, the Emergency Risks (Factories) Insurance Act, 1962 and under the scheme framed there under. For the purpose of making provision for the insurance of certain property in india against damage by enemy action during the period of emergency Parliament enacted the Emergency Risks (Factories) Insurance Act, 1962. The said Act came into force on the 19th of december, 1962. Section 3 specified the factories insurable under the scheme to be framed under the Act. Section 8 authorised the Central Government to obtain information. The said section provides as follows :

(2.) SECTION 11 provides for recovery of premiums unpaid. Sub-section (3) of section 1 is material and it is necessary to set out the same :

(3.) PURSUANT to this Act a scheme was framed, it is not necessary in view of the fact that only one point was urged in this case, though several points were taken in the petition, to refer in detail to the said scheme. In clarification of the point urged in support of this application Mr. Dutt formulated four points as additional grounds to the petition and I allowed his client to agitate these joints, which are as follows :