AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.D. Dinakaran, J.—The Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Act, 1943, (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') was enacted to regulate and control
the business of Pawn Brokers in the State of Tamil Nadu. The said Act got the assent of the Governor General on the 8th Nov. 1943 and
published in the Fort St. George Gazette on 23rd Nov. 1943.
As per Section 3 of the Act, no person shall, after the expiry of three months from the date on which the provision of this Act came into force in
any area, carry on or continue to carry on business as pawn broker at any place in such area, unless he has obtained a pawn brokers licence under
this Act. The explanation to Section 3 of the Act makes it clear that where a pawn broker has more than one shop or place of business, whether in
the same town or village or in different towns and villages, he shall obtain a separate pawn brokers licence in respect of each such shop or
business.
Section 22 of the Act enables the State Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act. Accordingly, the Tamil Nadu Pawn
Brokers Rules, 1943, (hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules'') were framed in G.O. Ms. 2064. Development, dated 13th May, 1944.
As per the provisions of the said Act and Rules, a licence to continue to carry on the business as pawn broker, at any place in Tamil Nadu ,
issued thereunder is mandatory.
However. Section 21-A was inserted by Tamil Nadu Act 7 of 1948, which reads as follows :
Section 21-A:
Power to exempt companies registered before 1st Nov. 1944 -- The State Government may, by general or special order, exempt any company
incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, before the 1st day of Nov. 1944 from any of the provisions of this Act or direct that any
such provision shall apply to such company with such modifications as may be specified in the order.
Section 21-A empowers the State Government to exempt any company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913, before 1st Nov. 1944,
either by general or special order, from any of the provisions of this Act or direct that any of such provision shall apply to such company with such
modifications as may be specified in the order. Aggrieved by the said determination of the date, viz. 1-11-1944 for granting exemptions to the
companies which are registered before 1-11-1944 and denying the same to the companies registered after 1-11-1944, the petitioners seek a writ
of Declaration declaring that the words ""before the first day of Nov. 1944"" inserted in Section 21-A of the Act are null and void and not applicable
to them.
7.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the determination of the date viz. 1-11-1944 for classifying the companies, which were
registered under the Companies Act, 1913, before 1-11-1944 and after 1-11-1944 for exempting any provision of the Act or to direct that any
such provision shall apply to such companies that were registered before 1-11-1944, with such modification, either by general or special order, is
abritrary, discriminatory and therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as both the classes of the Companies are doing the very
same nature of business as pawn broker.
7.2. It is contended that there is no justification to discriminate the companies that are doing business as pawn broker for granting exemption u/s
21-A of the Act, on the basis of registration as companies before 1-11-1944 or after 1-11-1944, as equals cannot be treated as unequals.
7.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the above discrimination is unreasonable and suffers for want of nexus between the
power sought to be exercised u/s 21-A of the Act and the object sought to be achieved thereunder.
8.1. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State inviting my attention to the fact that the Act came into force
on 23-11-1943, that Section 3 of the Act requires any person who proposed to carry or continue to carry on the business as pawn broker at any
place in such area, to obtain a licence compulsorily within three months from the date on which the provision of the Act came into force, viz. three
months from 23rd Nov. 1943: that the Rules were framed by exercising powers conferred u/s 22 of the Act, by this State and notified by G.O.
Ms. No. 2064, Development, dated 13th May, 1994: and that Section 21-A was inserted by the legislature by Act 7 of 1948, contends that the
period of three months requiring to obtain the licence presumably commences from 13th May, 1944, viz. the date of framing of the Rules and ends
by 12th August, 1944.
8.2. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the effect of Section 21-A is only to give exemption to the companies which were
already registered as companies for doing business as pawn broker, under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. In other words.
Section 21-A of the Act is intended to apply the provisions of the Act for the companies which were registered under the Indian Companies Act.
before 1-11-1944 and propose to continue to carry on the business as pawn broker even after 1-11-1944, viz. after the enactment of the Act and
framing of the Rules, viz. 23-11-1943 and 13-5-1944 respectively.
8.3. It is also brought to my notice that Section 21-A of the Act not only enables the Government either to exempt such companies which are
incorporated before 1-11-1944, but also enables the Government to apply the provisions of the Act to such companies that were registered under
the Indian Companies Act before 1-11-1994, with such modification as may be specified in the general or special order. Therefore, once it is
borne out of records that the Act came into force from 23-11-1943 and the Rules were framed thereunder viz. on 13-5-1944 and three months
period was provided to obtain a pawn broker''s licence, as per Section 3 of the Act, the power conferred on the Government either to exempt any
of the Act or to apply such provision with such modifications to the companies that were registered before 1-11-1994, is explainable and hence,
the same cannot be complained as abritrary and unreasonable.
8.4. The learned Additional Advocate General, placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs.
Parameswaran Match Works and Others, : and D.G. Gose and Co. (Agents) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and Another, : contends that the
choice of a date as the basis for classification need not always be arbitrary, if sound reasons are available on records.
I have bestowed my careful consideration to the submissions of both sides.
10.1. The facts narrated above as to the date of enactment of the Act, viz. 23-11-1943, and framing of the Rules u/s 22 of the Act viz. 13-5-1944
are not disputed . It is with reference to the said relevant dates. Section 21-A was inserted by Tamil Nadu Act 7 of 1948. As rightly pointed out
by the learned Additional Advocate General. Section 21-A, on the other hand, not only empowers the Government to exempt any of the
provisions of the Act to those companies incorporated under the Companies Act before 1-11-1944, but also to direct that any such provision shall
apply to such company with such modifications as may be specified either by general or special order.
10.2. Once the relevant dates of enactment of the Act and framing of the Rules and the fact that Section 3 of the Act provides three months time to
obtain a pawn broker''s licence are not seriously disputed by the petitioner, I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that fixing 1-11-1944 as crucial date for exercising the power conferred on the Government u/s 21-A of the Act for the purposes
mentioned therein as referred to above, is arbitrary and unreasonable.
10.3. The Apex Court in Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Parameswaran Match Works and Others, : has held that the choice of a date as a
basis for classification cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is forthcoming for the choice unless it is shown to be
capricious or whimsical in the circumstances and when it is seen that a line or a point there must be and that there is no mathematical or logical way
of fixing it precisely, the decision of the legislature or its delegate must be accepted unless we can say that it is very wide of the reasonable mark.
10.4 Following the said radio, the Apex Court in D.G. Gose and Co. (Agents) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and Another, : held that choosing a
particular date as a basis for classification for exercising the statutory power cannot be said that the legislature enacted unreasonable or that it was
wide of reasonable mark.
10.5. It is for the wisdom of the legislature to decide the classification of the companies registered under the Indian Companies Act based on the
crucial date, before 1-11-1944 after 1-11-1944, in the light of the relevant dates viz. (i) the date of enactment of the Act viz. 23-11-1943; and (ii)
the date of framing of rules thereunder on 13-5-1994. Therefore, neither determination of such date for exercising the power to grant exemption
under any of the provisions of the Act or to direct that any such provision shall apply to the companies incorporated before 1-11-1944, nor
classification of the companies incorporated under the Act, taking 1-11-1944 as crucial date, in the light of the relevant dates referred to above, is
arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory or capricous, inasmuch as the, companies registered before 1-11-1944, even though they are doing the
same business as pawn broker, they cannot be treated as equals with the companies pursuant to the enactment of the Act. The contention that such
classification also suffers for want of nexus between the power sought to be exercised u/s 21-A of the Act and the object sought to be achieved
thereunder also fails, as Section 21-A of the Act, not only empowers the Government to exempt any of the provisions of the Act to those
companies incorporated under the Companies Act before 1-11-1944, but also to direct that any such provision shall apply to such companies with
such modifications as may be specified either by general or special order.
Finding no substance in the writ petitions, the same are dismissed . No costs. Consequently, WMP No. 17405 and 20001 of 1984 are also
dismissed.