RAVINDER NATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have challenged the validity of the Himachal Pradesh Resin and Resin Products (Regu-lation of Trade) Act, 1981 (hereinafter refer-red to as the Act). The challenge in the main is about the monopolies created in favour of the State in regard to the resin and resin products.

(2.) Section 4 of the Act provides that on and after the commencement of the Act no person shall tap resin or manufacture any resin product or export any resin or resin products, unless he is registered under the Act. It also provides that no person shall sell resin to any person other than the State Government or its authorised officer and no person other than the State Government or authorised officer shall purchase resin from any tapper/owner of resin. The Act further provided that no person other than the State Government or an authorised officer shall transport resin except otherwise than as provided in the Act. The Act also makes provision of fixing up of prices at which State Government is to purchase the resin.

(3.) The petitioners were earlier engaged in the business of extraction of resin and its Sale within and outside the State of Himachal Pradesh. The challenge in the main i.s based on their fundamental right under Arti-cle 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to carry on trade or business Article 19(6) however, permits State monopoly in regard to any trade or business to the exclusion, complete or partial, of all others in that behalf. Such monopolies are permitted is clear from the Cooverjee v. Excise Commissioner, 1954 SCR 873 : (AIR 1954 SC 220); Dosa Satya-narayanamurty v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, (1961) 1 SCR 642 : (AIR 1961 SC 82) and M/s. Daruka and Co. v. The Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 2711.