GEM PALACE JAIPUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a group of 150 Writ petitions whereby the petitioners have challenged the validity of Sections 4, 5, 6, "8, 16, 18, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 44, 47, 50, 52, 53, 67, 68, 71 to 77, 85 to 98, 100, 101, 103, 108, 110 and 118 of the gold (Control) Act, (No. 45 of 1968) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that they are violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution o India as these provisions put unreasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade of the petitioners.

(2.) THE petitioners are licensed dealers in gold under Chapter 3 of Part 12a of the defence of India Rules, 1962, and were authorised thereunder to carry on their business as a dealer in gold. After the Act came into force, the Superintendent of excise in charge of the Gold Cell for the places where the petitioners reside sent form Ex. 1 to file the returns under Section 16 (1) read with Section 16 (7) of the act. Petitioners' allegation is that the respondent No. 4 has called upon the petitioners and other licensed gold dealers to file a declaration in accordance with form Ex. 1 and pressure has been brought on them through the Inspectors and other subordinate officers of the department to comply with the requirement of the gold (Control) Act.

(3.) THE Act and its different provisions were challenged before the Supreme Court in H. R. Banthia v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 166 = (AIR 1970 SC 1453 ). That writ petition was disposed of by the Supreme Court during the pendency of these petitions and the Judgment of the Supreme Court covers various grounds preferred by the petitioners to challenge the aforesaid provisions of the Act. After the Judgment of the Supreme Court, the petitioners have confined their attack only to Sections 6 (1), 16 (5), 16 (7), 27 (7) (b), 27 (8), 28 and 52 of the Act. The challenge thrown to the other sections in the writ petitions was, however, not pressed by Mr. A. K. Sen who appeared on behalf of the petitioners.