1991 (2) TMI 415 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of Mysore Silkworm Seed Act Confirmed, No Repugnancy with Central Silk Boards Act

B. Viswanathiah and Company and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka and Ors.

The Court upheld the validity of the Mysore Silkworm Seed and Cocoon (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distributions) Act, 1959, as amended by ... - Issues Involved:1. Legislative competence of the State Legislature to enact the Mysore Silkworm Seed and Cocoon (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distributions) Act, 1959, as amended by Karnataka Act No. 33 of 1979.2. Repugnancy of the state legislation with the Central Silk Boards Act, 1948.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Legislative Competence of the State LegislatureThe primary contention was whether the State Legislature was competent to enact and amend the Mysore Silkworm Seed and Cocoon (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distributions) Act, 1959, especially after the enactment of the Central Silk Boards Act, 1948, which contains a declaration under Entry 52 of List I in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.The Court clarified that the validity of the Act and certain notifications issued under it had been previously challenged and upheld in various cases, including 'State of Mysore and Ors. v. Hanumiah' and 'Syed Ahmed Agha v. State.' However, the current challenge was based on the amendments made by Karnataka Act No. 33 of 1979, which introduced additional regulations concerning silk yarn.The petitioners argued that the State Legislature was incompetent to legislate on the silk industry due to Section 2 of the Central Silk Boards Act, which declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the Union should take control of the silk industry. This declaration was argued to remove the silk industry from the purview of the State's legislative powers.The Court, however, relied on a series of precedents, including 'Tika Ramji and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.,' which delineated the scope of Entry 52. The Court observed that the control of an industry under Entry 52 does not encompass all aspects of the industry. Specifically, it identified three aspects: raw materials, the process of manufacture or production, and the distribution of the products. The Court concluded that while the process of manufacture or production falls under Entry 52, raw materials and distribution of products do not. Thus, the State Legislature retained the power to legislate on these aspects.Issue 2: Repugnancy with the Central Silk Boards ActThe Court further examined whether the state legislation was repugnant to the Central Silk Boards Act. The Central Act primarily aimed at the development of the silk industry through measures such as scientific, technological, and economic research, and improving the marketing of raw silk.The Court noted that the amendments introduced by Karnataka Act No. 33 of 1979 imposed restrictions on the production, supply, distribution, and sale of silk yarn, analogous to those earlier imposed on silkworm seeds and cocoons. The Court emphasized that these amendments did not encroach upon the domain of production and manufacture of silk yarn, which was under the purview of the Central Act.The Court concluded that the state legislation focused on the distribution and supply of silk yarn, which falls under Entry 27 of List II and Entry 33 of List III, and not under the control of the industry as envisaged by Entry 52 of List I. Therefore, there was no repugnancy between the state legislation and the Central Silk Boards Act.Conclusion:The Court upheld the validity of the Mysore Silkworm Seed and Cocoon (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distributions) Act, 1959, as amended by Karnataka Act No. 33 of 1979, affirming the legislative competence of the State Legislature. It dismissed the appeals and writ petitions, finding no repugnancy with the Central Silk Boards Act, 1948. The Court made no orders regarding costs.