Trade regulation cannot impose an arbitrary ban on machinery without public interest justification under constitutional limits.

Executive instructions may regulate a trade within the State's competence, but they cannot impose an arbitrary prohibition that lacks justification and infringes fundamental rights. A circular banning machine manufacture of copper utensils and threatening cancellation of registration was held to be beyond permissible regulation because it disclosed no material showing public interest or necessity, and therefore was not a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6). The court also noted that Section 17 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir encourages crafts and cottage industries but does not authorise an absolute bar on machinery. The circular was held unconstitutional, arbitrary, and inconsistent with the constitutional framework.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned circular issued by the industrial authorities was within their competence and could be sustained as an executive instruction regulating the petitioners' trade. (ii) Whether the circular, which prohibited manufacture of copper utensils by machine and threatened cancellation of registration, was a reasonable restriction protected by Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India and consistent with Section 17 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned circular issued by the industrial authorities was within their competence and could be sustained as an executive instruction regulating the petitioners' trade.

Analysis: Executive instructions may regulate matters within the State's legislative competence, and an authority that grants registration may also supervise and regulate the permitted activity. However, such competence does not extend to arbitrary interference with fundamental rights. The validity of the circular therefore depended on whether it was a permissible regulation or an unlawful prohibition.

Conclusion: The authorities could regulate the trade, but not by an arbitrary prohibition lacking proper justification.

Issue (ii): Whether the circular, which prohibited manufacture of copper utensils by machine and threatened cancellation of registration, was a reasonable restriction protected by Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India and consistent with Section 17 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir.

Analysis: A restriction on trade must be reasonable, in the interests of the general public, and supported by material showing the public purpose served. The circular imposed a ban rather than a mere regulation, gave no reasons, and did not disclose any material to show public interest or necessity. Section 17 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, while requiring promotion of crafts and cottage industries, also contemplates modernisation of techniques and does not justify an absolute bar on machinery. The order was also arbitrary and offended Article 14.

Conclusion: The circular was not a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6), was inconsistent with Section 17 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, and was unconstitutional and arbitrary.

Final Conclusion: The impugned prohibition on machine manufacture of copper utensils could not stand, and the writ petitions succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Executive regulation of trade must remain non-arbitrary and must be supported by material showing that a restriction is reasonable and in the public interest under Article 19(6); a sweeping prohibition without disclosed justification is unconstitutional.

---