SURAJMAL Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Surajmal', owner of firm Badichand Bachhraj of gratapgarh praying for a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate direction against the Rajasthan State as the case may require.

(2.) THE application in this case was made on the 6th of September, 1951. THE applicant is the licensee of the Power House at Pratapgarh. He increased the rates of supply of electricity for domestic and industrial consumers from the 1st of May 1951. THE Government of Rajasthan however did not approve of this increase in rates and tried to persuade the applicant to continue charging the old rates till such time as the Government appointed a rating committee. THE applicant, however, refused to agree to this on the ground that this would ruin his financial condition. THEreupon, on the 29th of August, 1951, the State of Rajasthan served an order which is said to have been passed under Section 33 of the Rajasthan Public Security Ordinance, 1949 (Ordinance No. 26 of 1949 ). By this order, the applicant was directed to carry on the working of the Power House at Pratapgarh until further order and to abstain from closing the same and from removing a. ny machinery appertaining to the said Power House. THE applicant asked for withdrawal of the order and when it was not withdrawn, filed the present application on the 6th of September 1951, praying for certain reliefs which it is not necessary to set down here. Before, however, the application came up for hearing, the State took possession of the Power House by forcibly breaking open the lock put upon it by the applicant. In view of this changed situation, the applicant filed another affidavit on the 17th of September 1951, in which he set out these facts and said that the taking of possession of the Power House without any authority of law and without compensation was a breach of the provisions of Articles 31 (1) and 31 (2) of the Constitution of India as Ordinance No. XXVI of 1949 had expired on the 9th of September 1951. It was also urged that Section 33 of the Rajasthan Public Security Ordinance, 1949 (No. 26 of 1949) was invalid as it violated Article 19 (1) of the Constitution and was not saved under Article 19 (5 ). It was also urged that the order violated Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and was not saved under Article 19 (6 ). Thus, the applicant in the altered situation gave up the reliefs he had sought in the application of 6th of September 1951, and prayed for an order for the restoration of his property of which he had been deprived without the authority of law.

(3.) IF we may say so with respect, that conclusion is supported by Article 31 (5 ). That article provides that Article 31 (2) shall not apply to the provisions of any law which the State may hereafter make for the promotion of public health or the prevention of danger to life or property. For such purposes, a person might be deprived of his property even by destruction of it and would be entitled to no compensation. The case would be covered by Article 31 (1) provided, the deprivation is made by authority of law. Provisions of Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also provide for destruction of property in certain circumstances by order of a Magistrate. In such a case, the owner is deprived of the property but is not entitled to any compensation and the action of the Magistrate would be protected under Article 31 (1) for the deprivation is by authority of law.