AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Katju and R.S. Tripathi, JJ.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Standing counsel may file counter-affidavit within three weeks. List thereafter.
The Petitioner runs a sugar factory. It is alleged in this petition that reservation order u/s 15 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) contemplates that the Petitioner should crush 50 lacs quintals of sugarcane and the Petitioner proposes to continue the crushing operation till 7.5.2003 vide its letter to the Cane Commissioner Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The grievance of the Petitioner is that by the impugned order of the Cane Commissioner and of the District Magistrate, it has been directed to continue crushing operation even thereafter and only close its crushing operation after taking prior permission from the Cane Commissioner.
In our prima facie opinion, no one can be compelled to continue to do his business if he does not want to do so. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution gives the right to all citizens to do business, and in our opinion this includes the right not to do business and the right not to continue its operations. Whether to continue operation or not is for the management to decide on its own assessment and commercial considerations, and no one can be compelled to do or to continue to do business or operate its business against his wishes. In our opinion, to compel a person to do business, when it does not want to do so is not a reasonable restriction of the right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Hence, until further orders, we direct that the operation of the impugned order dated 2.4.2003 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) and of District Magistrate, Kushinagar dated 17.4.2003 (Annexure-9) as well as order dated 18.4.2003 of the District Cane Officer (Annexure-10) shall remain stayed and the Respondents are directed not to compel the Petitioner to crush more than 50 lacs quintals of sugarcane during the crushing season 2002-03.