Vishnu Dayal Mahendra Pal & Ors Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh & ANR  INSC 113 (1 May 1974)
MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN ALAGIRISWAMI, A.
SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH
CITATION: 1974 AIR 1489 1975 SCR (1) 376 1974
SCC (2) 306
Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadhan Mandi
Adhiniyam, 1964 and Rules made thereunder-If violative of Arts. 14 and 19(1)(g)
of the Constitutional.
The Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadhan Mandi
Adhiniyam, 1964 as amended by U.P. Acts 25 of 1964 and 10 of 1970. was enacted
to provide for the regulation of the sale and purchase of agricultural produce,
to protect the producers from exploitation and for the establishment,
superintendence and control of markets in U.P. Under s. 5, the State Government
is empowered to declare a particular area as market area and under s. 7. the
principal market yard and sub-market yards are declared. Section 7(2) provides
that no person shall in a principal market yard or sub-market yard carry on
business as a trader, broker, commission agent etc., in respect of specified
agricultural produce except in accordance with the conditions of a licence
obtained from he concerned market committee. Sec. 13 provides for the
constitution of the market committee and for representation on the committee from
different sources. Under s. 17. the committee has power to issue, renew,
suspend or cancel licences.
Section 25 provides for appeals against
orders of the committee to the Director of Agriculture and s. 32 for revision
by the State Government Under s. 16(2)(vii), the committee has to provide
accommodation for storage. Sec. 40 enables the-' State Government to make rules
Rule 70(4)(1)provides that the Committee may issue a licence to an applicant if
it is satisfied. (a) that the applicant is solvent and (b) that the applicant
is a desirable person.
Rule 76(1) provides that every consignment of
specified agricultural produce brought for sale into the principal or
sub-market yard shall be sold by open auction.
The petitioners who were traders or
commission agents, dealing in agricultural produce, challenged the validity of
the Act, and the rules made there under on the ground of violation of Arts. 14
They contended that : (1) that constitution
of the committee is prejudicial to their interests since. it will have a
perpetual majority of producers, (2) the entrustment of licensing to such a
committee is an unreasonable restriction on their right to trade, (3) there is
no guidance in the matter of grant of licences, the criteria mentioned in r.
70(4) being vague, (4) the requirement to
provide storage space for the producers by the petitioners is an unreasonable
restriction, and (5) r. 76(1) is ultra vires s.40 and also places an
unreasonable restriction on the petitioners.
Dismissing the petitions,
HELD :-(1) Under s. 13, the Committee is to
consist of 23 members and out of, them only 10 are from the producers.
Therefore the submission is factually
inaccurate as there is no question of a perpetual majority of producers.
[381G-H] (2) There are no unreasonable features in the scheme of representation
in the committee. Under 8. 13, 8 producers are elected who may represent the 8
categories of agricultural produce mentioned in the schedule and two producers
are nominated from the schedule castes by the Government, because, they may not
get due representation in the election. The performance of the duty of
licensing by such a committee cannot prejudice the petitioners. In fact, none
of the petitioners has been refused a licence. Though usually some governments]
authority is charged with the duty of granting licences under various Acts,
that does not prove that the duty cannot be property and impartially exercised
by a Committee representing various interests which are 377 vitally interested
in the trade. of agricultural produce.
If in a particular case. the action of the
Committee is mala fide' or otherwise objectionable such grievance can be
properly dealt with. [381H-382E] (3) It is not correct to say that there is no
guidance in the Act in the matter of grant of license and that the two criteria
provided by rule 70(4)(1) are vague. [382E-F] (a) The Committee which is
entrusted with the duty of granting licences consists of people from different
sources vitally interested in the marketing of agricultural produce, as well as
Government officials. It is a well-represented Committee which is expected to
know the object and purpose of the Act of' which it is a creature. There is
sufficient guidance from the preamble and other provisions of the Act with
which the members of the Committee would be familiar and-conversant, for
example, s. 16 of the Act and the particulars in Forms XI and XIII. for the
application of a licence and Conditions of a licence. With the help of
Government officials in the committee there is no reason to think that the
Committee will not function smoothly or to apprehend that licence would be
refused arbitrarily. There is also a limitation on the power of the Committee
in that the Act insists that the Committee should record its reasons while
refusing a licence. Further, there is provision of appeal against the decision
of the Committee and a further revision to the State Government. [382F-383D]
(b) One of the two criteria mentioned in r. 70(4)(i). is solvency and the
criterion on the score or 'bankruptcy is well-known and cannot be said to be
vague or indefinite. As regards the second criterion, namely, that the
applicant should be a desirable person the Act itself provides sufficient
guidance to the Committee in the matter of deciding whether a particular
applicant is or is not a proper person to hold the licence. [383F-H] (4) The
requirement to provide a storage space is only an interim measure pending
arrangements by the Committee for proper storage as required by S. 16. Under r.
52(4) storing of the specified agricultural produce shall be subject to the
payment of such storage fee and other conditions as may be: specified in the
bye-laws. Since the storage by the traders in the market yards will always be
paid for under the rule there is no substance in the contention that the
requirement is unreasonable. [384A-B] (5)(a Rule 76(1) is not ultra vires s. 40
Section 9(2) restricts the right to carry on trade except under and in
accordance with the licence_ and s. 17 provides for issuing or renewal of
licences subject to the restrictions under the rules, and these sections are
not challenged. Section 40 empowers the State Government to make rules for
carrying out the purposes of the Act, and under s. 40(2) (xxvii), r. 76(1) only
prescribes open auction as the mode of sale. [384B-D] (b) The rule does not
violate the fundamental right of the petitioners under Art. 19(1)(g). [384G]
The definitions of sale and purchase in the. Act do not run counter to the
provisions relating to auction sale under, the rule and, it Could not be field
to be an unreasonable mode considered in the entire scheme of the Act. in order
that the producers may obtain the best price for their commodity, sale by open
auction is prescribed under the rule to fulfill one of the important purposes
of the Act. The legislature is intervening to see that the producers get the
maximum pecuniary return possible in the transaction and as a necessary
concomitant eliminated the made of private sale by individual negotiation
resulting in malpractices. Besides, by the Proviso to the rule the restriction
is not allowed to operate in the case of retail sales. [384D-G] Lala Hari Chand
Sarda v. Mizo District Council and all)-.
 1 S.C.R. 479 and Harakchand Ratanchand
Banthia and ors. etc. v. Union of India and ors.  1 S.C.R. 479,
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petitions Nos.
1524, 1537-1580 of 1973 and 74, 75, 254, 510-512 of 19702' 21 of 1971 and 1525
& 1581-1606 of 1973.
Petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution
A. K. Sen, Yogeshwar Prasad, S. K. Bagga and
S. Bagga, for the petitioners (in W.Ps. Nos. 1524 and 1537-1580/73).
A. K. Sea, (in W.P. No. 74/70), Hardyal Hardy
(in W.P. No.75/70), Yogeshwar Prasad, S. K. Bagga and S. Bagga, for the
petitioners in (W.P. Nos 74, 75, 254 and 510-512/70, 21/71 and 1525,
L. N. Sinha, Solicitor General and O. P.
Rana, for respondents (in W.Ps. Nos. 1524, 1537-1580173).
O. P. Rana, for respondents (in W.Ps. Nos.
74, 254/70, 21171, 1525, 1581-1606/73 and respondents nos. 1 & 3 in W.P.75
V. M. Tarkunde and E. C. Agarwala, for
respondent No. 2 (in W.-P. No. 75/70 and applicant/intervener in W.P. No.75/70.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered byGoswami,
J.-By the above writ applications under Article 32 of the Constitution the
validity of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadhan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (U.P. Act
No. XXV of 1964 as amended by U.P. Act No. 10 of 1970) (briefly called the Act)
and the rules made thereunder are challenged on the ground of violation of
Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the, Constitution.
The petitioners in all the above cases are
traders or commission agents dealing in agricultural produce.
The following submissions are made on behalf
of the petitioners (1) The constitution of the Market Committee under section
13 of the Act is highly prejudicial to their interests and of the traders in
general since, it will have a perpetual majority of producers.
(2) To entrustment of licensing to such a
Market Committee instead of to any impartial authority is unfair and an un-.
reasonable restriction on the right to trade.
(3) The Act in the matter of grant of
licences gives no guidance at all and even under rule 70(4) two vague criteria
have been laid down in the matter of issue of licences under the Act.
(4) The petitioners are required to provide a
storage space to the producers for their agricultural produce going to the
market and this obligation is also an unreasonable restriction on the
fundamental right of the petitioners.
379 (5) Rule 76 (1) is invalid and ultra
vires section 40 of the Act and has also placed unreasonable restrictions on
the right to carry on trade or business.
Before we deal with these submissions, we may
turn out attention to the Act. As the preamble shows the Act has to provide for
the regulation of sale and purchase of agricultural produce and fox the
establishment, superintendence, and control of markets therefore in Uttar
Pradesh. The statement of object and reasons gives a clear picture of the evils
sought to be, remedied by this legislation and a portion there from may be
extracted below :"The present chaotic state of affairs as, obtaining in
agricultural produce markets is an acknowledged fact. There are innumerable
charges,, levies. and exactions which the agricultural producer is required to
pay without having any say in the proper utilisation of the amount so paid by
him. In matters of dispute, between the seller and the buyer, the former is
generally put at a disadvantage; by being given arbitrary awards.
The producer is also denied a large pa rt of
his produce by manipulation and defective use of weights and scales in the
market. The Government of India and the various committees and commissions
appointed to study the condition of agricultural markets in the country have
also been inviting the attention of the State Government from time to time
towards improving the conditions of these markets .... The Planning Commission
stressed long ago that legislation in respect of regulation of markets should be,
enacted and enforced by 1955-56".
It is also mentioned that legislation in the
State was first proposed in 1938 but lapsed. It also appears that most of the
other states have already passed legislation in this respect. It is, therefore,
clear that the principal object of this Act is to come in aid of the producers
who are generally ill-organised and are by far and large the exploited party in
the bargain between unequals.
Section 2 contains the definitions. By
section 2(a) " 'agricultural produce' means such items of produce of
agriculture, horticulture, viticulture, apiculture, sericulture, pisciculture,
animal husbandry or forest as are specified in the schedule, and includes
admixture of 2 or more of such items, and also includes any such item in processed
form, and further includes gur, rab, shakkar, khandsari and jaggery". By
section 2 (f) "'Committee' means a Committee constituted under this
Act". By section 2(k) " 'Market Area' means an area notified as such
under section 6 or as modified under section 8". By section 2(p) "
'producer' means a person who, whether by himself or through hired labour,
produces, rears or catches, any agricultural produce, not being a producer who
also works as a trader, broker or Dalal, commission agent or Arhatiya or who is
otherwise ordinarily engaged in the business, of storage of agricultural
produce". We are not concerned with the proviso attached thereto. By
section 2(y) " 'trader' means a person who in the ordinary course of
business is engaged in buying or selling agricultural produce as a principal or
as a duly authorised agent of one or more 380 principals and includes a person,
engaged in processing of agricultural produce". After notification by the
State Government of its intention to declare a particular area as a Market Area
under section 5 and after inviting objections and consideration of the same,
the State Government under section 6 declares the whole or any specified
portion of the area mentioned in the notification to be the Market Area in
respect of such agricultural produce as may be specified.
Similarly under section 7, the Principal
Market Yard and Sub-Market Yards are declared. Section 9(2) which is material
for our purpose, may be quoted:"No person shall, in a Principal Market
Yard or any Sub-Market Yard, carry on business or work as a trader, broker,
commission-agent, warehouse man, weighman, palledar or in such other capacity
as may be prescribed in respect of any specified agricultural produce except
under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence obtained therefore
from the Committee concerned".
The petitioners make a great grievance of
this licensing provision by the Market Committee called the Mandi Samiti of the
Market Area. Section 13 provides for constitution of the Market Committee and
provides for representation from different sources as detailed in (i) to (xi)
The learned counsel draws our attention to
clauses, (vii) and (vii-a) of section 13(1) whereby ten representatives of the
producers are included in the Committee. It is pointed out by the learned
Solicitor General and not contradicted by Mr. Sen that ' the Committee under
section 13 consists of 23 members out of which ten are from the producers.
Section 16 provides for functions and duties of the Committee and, inter alia,
under section 2(i) thereof "a Committee shall ensure fair dealings between
the producers and persons engaged in the sale or purchase of specified
agricultural produce." Under section 17, "A Committee shall, for the
purposes of this Act, have the powers to(i) issue or renew licences under this
Act on such terms and conditions and subject to such restrictions as may be
prescribed, or, after recording reasons therefore, refuse to issue or renew any
(ii) suspend or cancel licences issued or
renewed under this Act".
Section 25 provides for appeals against the,
orders of the Committee to the Director of Agriculture who is to decide the
same in accordance with the rules. Under section 32, the State Government also
has powers of revision and may call for the records of the proceedings of the
Committee and pass orders modifying, annulling or reversing the same.
Section 40 enables the State Government to
make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act.
The rules, inter alia, provide for matters
relating to the functions, powers and duties of the Committee, licensing fee,
or market fee which may be levied and realised by the Committee and their mode
of recovery and the terms and conditions for assessment and renewal of licences
under this Act [section 40 (2) ]. There is a schedule to the Act 381 which
contains the description of the agricultural produce Under eight different
heads. Chapter VIII of the rules deals with transaction of business in Market
Yards and the opening rule 70 provides for licensing by the Market Committees.
By sub-rule(3) "any person desiring to hold licence under sub-rule (1)
shall make, in Form No. XI or Form No. XII, as the case may be, a written
application for a licence to the Market Committee and shall pay the licence
fees prescribed under rule 67". Rule 70(4) (i) may now be quoted:
"On receipt of such application together
with the amount of fee prescribed under rule 67, the Market Committee may issue
him the licence applied for,, if(a) it is satisfied that the applicant is
(b) it is satisfied that the applicant is a
desirable person to whom a licence may be granted;
provided that the provisions of sub-clause
(a) shall not apply to weighmen, measurers, palledars, truck plyers and Thela
This rule will have to be read with section
17 quoted above.
By rule 73, the order of refusal,
cancellation or suspension of a licence by, the Committee shall be communicated
to the person concerned in the specified manner indicated therein.
Rule 76(1) which is impugned may be quoted :
"Every consignment of specified
agricultural produce brought for sale into the Principal Market Yard or any
sub-Market Yard shall be sold by open auction:
Provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall
apply to a retail sale as may be specified in the bye-laws of the
Some provisions of similar Acts of the States
of Madras, Bombay and Gujarat had earlier been the targets of unsuccessful
attack in this Court and hence the constitutional challenge in the present
applications against the U.P. Act is necessarily on different ground,,. [See M.
C. V ' S. Arunchala Nadar etc. v. The State
of Madras & others;(1) Mohammad Hussain Gulam Mohammad and Another v.
The State of Bombay and another;(2) and Jan
Mohammed Noor Mohammed Begban v. State of Gujarat and Another(3)].
We may now turn to the Submissions. With
regard to the first submission, as earlier noted, the grievance is not
factually accurate. Out of 23 members of. the Committee only 10 are from the
producers. Therefore, there is no question of a perpetual majority of the
producers in the Committee. Besides under section 13(1)(vii), 8 producers are
elected. It may be even a legitimate expectation of the legislature that there
may be reasonable likelihood that Producers of eight categories of agricultural
produce mentioned in the schedule, (1)  (Supp) (1) S.C.R. 92. (2) 
(2) S.C.R. 659.
(3)  (1) S.C.R. 505.
382 may be represented. Under section
13(1)(vii-a), which was introduced by an amendment in 1970, two producers
belonging to the scheduled castes are to be nominated by the State Government
This provision is made in the interest of the People belonging to the scheduled
castes who may not be able to. get due representation in the elections. We do
not find any unreasonable features in the scheme of representation in the
Committee under section 13. This will be clear even from section 14 whereby the
first Committee appoints suitable members "to represent different
interests referred to in sub-section (1) of section 13". The first
submission of the petitioners is, therefore, of no avail.
We may now take up consideration of the
second and the third submissions which may be dealt with together. It is
submitted that the licensing of the traders should not be left in the hands of
the Market Committee. We find it difficult to appreciate how the performance of
this duty by the Committee will at all prejudice the traders. To say the least
it is a hypothetical objection in this case, as, we understand, none of the
petitioners have been refused a licence.. It is true that usually some
governmental authority is charged with the duty of granting of licences under
various local Acts. That, however, does not prove that the duly cannot be
properly and impartially exercised by the Committee representing various
interests which are vitally interested in the trade of agricultural produce.
Whether in a particular case the action of
the Committee is mala-fide or otherwise, objectionable, may be a different
matter and such a grievance can be properly dealt with.
That would, however, not make, the, provision
invalid nor can it be said to place an unreasonable restriction on the right of
the petitioners to trade.
It is further submitted that there is no
guidance in the Act in the matter of grant of licence and the relevant rule
70(4)(1) prescribes only two vague criteria in the matter.
This submission fails to take note of the
fact that the Committee which is entrusted with the duty of granting licences
consists of people from different sources vitally interested in the marketing
of agricultural produce. The Committee consists also of representatives from
local bodies, cooperative marketing societies Central Warehousing Corporation,
State Warehousing Corporation, representatives of traders and commission
agents, Government officials of whom one shall be a representative of the
Agriculture Department and the other of Food and Supplies Department, and so
forth. It is, therefore, a fairly well-represented Committee which is expected
to know the object and purpose of the Act of which it is a creature. One may
legitimately expect that the members are well aware of the difficulties of the
producers, interests of the traders and the intricacies of the trade. There is
sufficient guidance from the preamble and other provisions of the Act with
which the members of the Committee owe their duty to be conversant For example
under section 16 the Committee is charged with the duty of enforcing the
provisions of the Act, the rules and the bye-laws. It has to exercise its
powers and perform its duties and discharge its functions in accordance with
the provisions of the Act and the rules.
38 3 Under sub-section (2) of section 16, the
Committee shall ensure fair dealings between the producers and the traders
besides performing other functions. Form No. XI in which a trader has to submit
his application for a licence. also gives various particulars from which the
Committee would be able to consider his claim for a licence. It will be' seen
that in this form the, applicant has to undertake to abide by the conditions of
the licence and the provisions of the Act and the rules. The condition of the
licence which are noted in Form No. XIII would also give an indication of the
obligations of the licensee. All these would be known to the Committee.
At any rate, with the help of the Government
officials in the Committee there is no reason to think that the work of the
Committee will not function smoothly and that there will be any reason to
apprehend that licences would be refused arbitrarily. Even the scope for such
an apprehension is sought to be done away with by providing a provision
Provision of appeal against the decision of the Committee and also a further
revision to the State Government. There is a further limitation on the power of
the Committee by insisting upon recording of reasons while refusing a licence.
It is, therefore, clear that a speaking order has to be. passed when refusing a
licence and it will have to justify that the licence is refused only on
relevant considerations with regard to solvency and fitness in terms of the
provisions. of the Act.
It is submitted that the choice of the two
criteria under rule 70(4) (i) is bad and there is no proper guidance in these
criteria which are not capable of objective determination. The two criteria
laid down are solvency and desirability. The applicant has to satisfy the
Committee that he is solvent as opposed to insolvent that is bankrupt.
We are informed that the original Hindi
version of the rule which is translated into English gives the equivalents as
follows :"It is satisfied that the applicant is not a bankrupt (rindiwali)
"It is satisfied that the applicant is a
proper (upoyukta) person to whom a licence may be granted".
Mr. Sen candidly admits that the criterion on
the score of "bankruptcy" is well known and cannot be said to be
vague or indefinite. Hi, however, submits that the second criterion is not at
all precise and definite.
Although perhaps a more expressive guidance
could have been given, we have already observed that the Act itself provides
sufficient guidance to the Committee in the matter of deciding whether a
particular applicant is or is not a proper person to hold a licence and we
cannot accede to the submission that the two criteria taken with the other
guidelines from the provisions of the Act and the rules offer no proper
guidance to the Committee in tic matter of grant of licence. The second and the
third submissions of the petitioners are, therefore, devoid of substance.
With regard to the fourth submission, it is
sufficient to point out that under section 16(2)(vii) the Committee has to
provide, inter 384 alia, accommodation for storage and such other facilities as
may be prescribed. Under rule 52(4) storing of the specified agricultural produce
shall be subject to the payment of such storage fee and such other conditions
as may be specified in the by-laws. That being the position, this may be even
an interim measure pending arrangements by.the Committee, for proper storage.
Even otherwise the storage by the traders in the Market-Yards will be always
paid for under rule 52(4). There is, therefore, no substance in the fourth
submission of the petitioner.
With regard to the last submission regarding
invalidity of rule 76(1), we are not satisfied that the same is ultra vires
section 40 of the Act. Section 40 empowers the State Government to make rules
for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Rule 76(1) is well within the rule
making power of the State Government under section 40(2), clause (xxvii).
Section 9(2) restricts the right to carry on
trade except under and in accordance with a licence. Section 17 provides for
issuing or renewal of licences subject to the restrictions under the rules.
Section 9(2) and section 17 are not challenged before us. Rule 76(1) prescribes
the mode of sale that is to say by open auction under the rule making power
under section 40 read with clause (xxvii). The rule is not ultra vires section
40 of the Act. It is said that prohibiting private sales by confining only to
sale by open auction puts an unreasonable restriction on the right to trade of
the petitioners. If section 9(2) and section 17 are not challenged as invalid,
it is not understood how rule 76(1) which is within the rule making power can
be said to be unreasonable. In order that the producers obtain the best price
for their commodity, sale by open auction is prescribed under rule 76(1) lo
fulfil one of the important purposes of the Act. Sale by auction is a well
known mode of sale by which the producers, for whose interest this Act has been
made, can obtain the best price for their commodities. The definition of sale
and purchase to which our attention has been drawn by the petitioners do not
run counter to the provisions for auction-sale under rule 76.
It cannot by any stretch of imagination be
held to be an unreasonable mode in the entire scheme of the Act. The
legislature is intervening to see that the producers get the maximum pecuniary
return possible in their transactions and, as a necessary concomitant,
eliminated the mode of private sale by individual negotiations resulting in
Besides by the proviso to rule 76(1) this
restriction is not allowed to operate in the case of retail sales. There is,
therefore, no substance in the submission that rule 76(1) violates the
fundamental right of the petitioners under Article 19 (1) (g) of the
Mr. Sen particularly drew our attention to
two decisions of this Court. The first is given in Lala Hari Chand Sarda v.
Mizo District Council and Anr. (1) That was a
case where the Executive Committee of the Mizo District Council refused to
renew the temporary licence issued to the appellant therein who was a
non-tribal trader under section 3 of the Lushai Hills District (Trading by
non-Tribals) Regulation, 1953.
This Court by majority struck down section 3
as (1) 1967 (1) S.C.R. 1012.
385 violative of Article 19(1) (g) of the
Constitution. This decision is clearly distinguishable from the present case.
In that case there was no right of appeal to
any superior authority against a refusal to grant or renew a ] licence and the
non-tribal trader had no remedy whatsoever against such an order. This Court
also observed in that case that "a perusal of the Regulation shows that it
nowhere provides any principle or standard on which the Executive Committee has
to act in granting or refusing to grant the licence" (emphasis added).
The second decision, is in Harakchand
Ratanchana Benthia and Ors. etc. v. Union of India and Ors.(1) This was a case
under the Gold (Control) Act and Mr. Sen drew our attention to the expression
'suitability of the applicant" in section 27(6)(e) of the Gold (Control)
Act which was held to provide no objective standard or norm and as such was
held to be constitutionally invalid. This Court while dealing with the
objection to section 27 of the Gold (Control) Act which relates to licensing of
dealers held as follows :--"Section 27(6)(a) states that in the matter of
issue or renewal of licences the Administrator shall have regard to the number
of dealers existing in the region in which the applicant intends to carry on
business as a dealer, But the word 'region is nowhere defined in the Act.
Similarly s. 27(6)(b) requires the Administrator to have due regard to the
anticipated demand, as estimated by him for ornaments in that region, but the
expression anticipated demand' is vague and incapable of objective assessment
and is bound to lead to a great deal of uncertainty. In the same way 'the
expression 'Suitability of the applicant in S. 27(6 ) (e) and 'public
interest" in s.
27 (6) (g) do not provide any objective
standard or norm. Further, the requirement in the section imposing the same
conditions for the renewal of the licence as for the initial grant is
unreasonable, as it renders the entire future of the business of the dealer
uncertain and subject to the caprice and arbitrary will of the administrative
'authorities. Therefore, clauses (a), (b), (e) and (g) of s. 27(6) are
In the instant case we have already examined
the two criteria laid down under rule 70(4) (i) and have held that they do not
place any unreasonable restriction on the right of the applicants to obtain a
licence. By rule, 70(4)(i)(b) the Committee has to be satisfied that the
applicant is a fit and proper person (upoyukta) to whom a licence may be
granted. This is not the same thing as the suitability simpliciter which this
Court had to deal with in the Gold (Control) Act case. The decision is,
therefore, clearly distinguishable.
In the result all the applications fail and
The parties will pay and bear their own
V.P.S. Petitions dismissed.
(1)  (1) S.C.R.479.