1969 (4) TMI 114 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds tendu leaf movement restrictions, permits needed for distribution to mazdoors.

Vrajlal Manilal & Co. & Ors Versus State of Madhya Pradesh. & Ors

The Supreme Court upheld the restrictions on the movement of tendu leaves, except for requiring permits for distribution to the mazdoors. The orders dated ... - Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of Section 5(2)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964.2. Validity of the order dated June 4, 1965, and October 12, 1965, regarding transport permits.3. Constitutionality of the restrictions imposed by Section 5 and Rule 9 under Article 19(1)(f) and (g) and Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution.4. Reasonableness of the restrictions on the movement of tendu leaves.Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of Section 5(2)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Tendu Patta (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1964:The appellants argued that Section 5(2)(b) should be construed to restrict the movement of tendu leaves only from the units where they are purchased to the warehouses of the purchaser outside such units, asserting that once the leaves were warehoused, there should be no further restrictions on their movement. However, the High Court held that a permit was necessary for the transport of leaves not only from the units where they were purchased to a place outside but also from one place to another outside the said unit. The Supreme Court affirmed this interpretation, indicating that the intention behind Section 5(2)(b) was to prohibit, except under permit, the movement of leaves from the units where they are purchased to any place outside, either for storing them or for their consumption in manufacturing bidis or for exporting them outside the State.2. Validity of the order dated June 4, 1965, and October 12, 1965, regarding transport permits:The appellants challenged the orders dated June 4, 1965, and October 12, 1965, which required permits for transporting tendu leaves from warehouses to branches and from there to sattedars and mazdoors. The High Court upheld these orders, and the Supreme Court agreed, stating that the restrictions were necessary to prevent surreptitious sales of tendu leaves and to ensure the effective implementation of the State monopoly. The Court found that the restrictions on transport were an integral part of the trade monopoly intended to prevent unauthorized sales and transport of tendu leaves.3. Constitutionality of the restrictions imposed by Section 5 and Rule 9 under Article 19(1)(f) and (g) and Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution:The appellants contended that the restrictions imposed by Section 5 and Rule 9 were not protected by the latter part of Article 19(6) or Article 304(b) and therefore had to pass the test of reasonableness. The Supreme Court referred to the case of Akadasi Padhan v. State of Orissa, where it was held that only the provisions of the law which are integrally and essentially connected with the creation of the monopoly are protected by the latter part of Article 19(6). The Court concluded that the restrictions on transport were ancillary to the trade monopoly and therefore had to pass the test of reasonableness under Article 19(1)(f) and (g) and Article 304(b).4. Reasonableness of the restrictions on the movement of tendu leaves:The Supreme Court acknowledged the necessity of some kind of check on the movement of tendu leaves to ensure the effective functioning of the State monopoly. The Court found that the permit system regulating the movement of leaves from the unit where they are purchased to the warehouse, then to branches, and to sattedars was reasonable. However, the Court held that requiring permits for the distribution of leaves to the mazdoors by the sattedars would be unreasonable and frustrating. The Court concluded that Section 5(2) and Rule 9 were intended to require permits only for the movement of leaves up to the sattedars and not for distribution to the mazdoors.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the restrictions on the movement of tendu leaves were valid and reasonable, except for the requirement of permits for distribution to the mazdoors. The orders dated June 4, 1965, and October 12, 1965, were upheld, with the exception of the requirement for permits for distribution to the mazdoors. The Court made no order as to costs.