Skip to content


K. Raman and Co., Tellicherry by Its Managing Proprietor, Kodirvo Kannan Chettiar Vs. the State of Madras and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 21 of 1951
Judge
Reported inAIR1953Mad84; [1952]22ITR377(Mad); (1952)2MLJ544
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226
AppellantK. Raman and Co., Tellicherry by Its Managing Proprietor, Kodirvo Kannan Chettiar
RespondentThe State of Madras and anr.
Appellant AdvocateA. Achuthan Nambiar and ;P. Anandan Nair, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateGovt. Pleader
Excerpt:
- .....the fundamental right to carry on the trade which he has been doing. the state can only put a reasonable restriction upon his right in the interests of general public. but, in this case, the order of the collector discloses that he is using his powers under the yarn dealers' control order for the purpose of collecting the amounts due to the government of india. the fact that a person is in arrears of incometax is not germane to the issue of a licence under the yarn dealers control order. it is a circumstance extraneous to the petitioner's right to carry on his business. the incometax act provides an adequate machinery for realising the arrears due from an assessee. i am of the view that the restriction imposed is unreasonable and is not in the interests of the general public.5. the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Subba Rao, J.

1. This is an application for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of the Collector of Malabar refusing to renew the licence in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is a firm carrying on business in Tellicherry in North Malabar district under the style of K. Raman and Co. The firm was a holder of a Retail Yarn Dealer's licence No. 10 KTM, wholesale cloth licence No. 26/MBR and Retail cloth licence No. 221/KTM under the provisions of the Yarn Dealer's Order, the Textile Control Order and the Madras Cloth (Dealers) Control Order, 1948. These three licences were renewed upto 31-3-1950. The petitioner applied for further renewal of the licences but the Collector of Malabar refused to renew the licences on the sole ground that he had not produced the Income Tax and Excess Profits tax verification certificates and that the firm was in arrears to the extent of Rs. 37293-14-0.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the Collector was arbitrary and the reason given was not germane to the issue of a licence.

3. Learned Government Pleader relied upon the order, G. O. No. 867 Finance dated 16-8-1949. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:

'They (the Madras Government) have decided that financial patronage at their disposal, e.g.) in the matter of granting contracts, placing orders for supplies and services, grant of permits and licences etc. should be given only to those who produce a certificate of incometax verification from the income-tax authorities on the analogy of the procedure adopted by the Government of India in respect of applications for export and import licences. The heads of departments are accordingly informed that applications for contracts, supplies, permits, licences, quotas and priorities etc., should not be considered unless the individual concerned produces the incometax verification certificates in the forms appended to these proceedings.'

4. The petitioner is a citizen of India and has the fundamental right to carry on the trade which he has been doing. The State can only put a reasonable restriction upon his right in the interests of general public. But, in this case, the order of the Collector discloses that he is using his powers under the Yarn Dealers' Control Order for the purpose of collecting the amounts due to the Government of India. The fact that a person is in arrears of incometax is not germane to the issue of a licence under the Yarn Dealers Control Order. It is a circumstance extraneous to the petitioner's right to carry on his business. The Incometax Act provides an adequate machinery for realising the arrears due from an assessee. I am of the view that the restriction imposed is unreasonable and is not in the interests of the general public.

5. The impugned order is hereby quashed. The respondents will pay the costs of the petitioner.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //