TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds validity of Govt order allotting resin extraction blazes, in public interest and constitutional.</h1> The Court upheld the validity of the Order dated 27th April 1979 by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, allotting blazes for resin extraction to the 2nd ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the Order dated 27th April 1979 by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir.2. Allegations of arbitrariness, malafide, and public interest.3. Creation of monopoly and unreasonable restrictions under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.4. Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Constitution due to arbitrary selection without competition.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Order dated 27th April 1979:The dispute centers around an Order by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, allotting 10 to 12 lacs blazes annually to the 2nd respondents for resin extraction from inaccessible chir forests for 10 years. The Order was challenged on various grounds, necessitating a detailed examination of the circumstances under which it was passed. The State had shifted from giving contracts on royalty basis to wage contracts to ensure that resin was used within the State to promote industrialization. The inaccessible forests in Reasi, Ramban, and Poonch Divisions were not feasible for wage contracts due to high extraction costs and lack of local labor. Hence, the State allotted these blazes to the 2nd respondents, who offered to set up a resin processing factory within the State.2. Allegations of Arbitrariness, Malafide, and Public Interest:The petitioners argued that the Order was arbitrary, malafide, and not in public interest, conferring undue benefit on the 2nd respondents at the State's expense. However, the Court found that the State's decision was reasonable and in public interest. The Order ensured the setting up of a factory within the State, creating job opportunities and increasing State revenue. The terms of the Order required the 2nd respondents to surrender 25% of the resin to the State and retain the balance for their factory. The cost of resin extraction from inaccessible areas was high, and the State benefited by securing resin at a lower rate without financial risk.3. Creation of Monopoly and Unreasonable Restrictions under Article 19(1)(g):The petitioners claimed that the Order created a monopoly for the 2nd respondents, restricting their right to carry on tapping business. The Court rejected this argument, noting that the Order only allotted inaccessible blazes to the 2nd respondents, leaving a significant number of blazes available for other contractors. The petitioners had opportunities to bid for wage contracts in other accessible areas.4. Alleged Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution:The petitioners contended that the State acted arbitrarily by selecting the 2nd respondents without allowing others to compete, violating Article 14. The Court found that the State's decision was based on rational and relevant principles. The 2nd respondents had significant experience in resin extraction and processing, and their proposal to set up a factory aligned with the State's industrialization policy. The State's action was not arbitrary or unreasonable, and the impugned Order was in the State's interest.Conclusion:The Court concluded that the impugned Order was valid, reasonable, and in public interest. The State's decision to allot inaccessible blazes to the 2nd respondents to ensure the setting up of a resin processing factory was justified. The Order did not create a monopoly or impose unreasonable restrictions, nor did it violate Article 14. The writ petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
