Reasonable regulation of furnaces for smoke nuisance control upheld; Article 19(1)(g) challenge failed.

The Bengal Smoke Nuisances Act's wide definition of "furnace" was upheld because the breadth was intentional and designed to regulate all non-domestic furnaces and fire-places, not to create uncertainty. The Court treated the Act's requirements for prior plan approval, inspection, and control of fuel and chimney arrangements as regulatory measures aimed at abating smoke nuisance and protecting public health. The challenge under Article 19(1)(g) failed because the restrictions were considered reasonable in relation to that public purpose, and the discrimination argument was not established on the materials before the Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the definition of "furnace" in the Bengal Smoke Nuisances Act was vague or overbroad, and whether the statutory restrictions on construction and use of furnaces violated the petitioner's right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Analysis: The Act was framed to abate smoke nuisance and, after amendment, deliberately employed a wide definition of "furnace" so as to bring within regulation all furnaces and fire-places used for purposes other than bona fide domestic use in a private house or the burning of the dead. The breadth of the definition was held to be intentional rather than uncertain. The scheme of the Act, including prior approval of plans, inspection, and control over fuel and chimney arrangements, was treated as a regulatory measure directed to a serious public-health evil. The petitioner's Article 19(1)(g) challenge failed because the restrictions were considered reasonable in the context of smoke nuisance control; the contention based on discrimination was not effectively established on the materials before the Court.

Conclusion: The statutory definition and control provisions were upheld as valid, and the challenge under Article 19(1)(g) failed.

---