CASE XV

CHINTAMONROA VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH1

FACTS:

During the commencement of the constitution of India, the central provinces and Behar
regulation of manufacturing of Bidis (Agricultural purposes) act was in force which provided
that “ the deputy commissioner may by notification fix a period to be an agricultural season
with respect to such villages as may be specified therein” and further said that the deputy
commissioner can pass a general order specifying the villages in which the order shall be
levied to prohibit the manufacture of bidis during the agricultural season. Thus, an order was
issued by the deputy commissioner under the provisions of the above mentioned act to
prohibit all people residing in the mentioned villages from engaging themselves in the
process of manufacture of bidis during a particular season.

Now, as result of which a bidi manufacturer and an employee in a bidi factory who were
residing in one of the mentioned villages applied under article 32 of the constitution for a writ
of ‘Mandamus’ with an allegation that the act is prohibiting them from exercising their
fundamental right to carry on their trade which was guaranteed to them by clause(1)(g) of
Article 19 of the constitution, so the order should be void and held. The object of the statute
is to see to it that the measures of supply of adequate labour in bidi manufacture areas for
agricultural purpose which could be achieved by restricting employment of agricultural
labour in the manufacture of bidis rather than altogether prohibiting manufacture of bidis.
The law to the extent may authorize the imposition of restrictions related to agricultural
labour which cannot be held valid.

ISSUE:

whether the statute in appearance of protecting public interests interfering with private
business which is to be concluded by showing a reasonable relation between the two?

REASONING:
1
1951 AIR 118
Application was submitted under article 32 of the constitution of India for a writ of
Mandamus. The point of consideration in these applications was whether the Central
Provisions and Berar Act LXIV of 1948 come within the domain of this saving clause or does
it exceeds its provision. So, to judge the validity of this argument it is necessary to examine
the challenged act and its related provisions.

According to preamble, it is said that it is enacted to provide measures for supply of labour
for bidi manufacturing areas which deputy commissioner prohibited and the contravention of
which is punishable either with six months of imprisonment or fine or both.

CONCLUSION:

So, it is to be concluded that in matter of fundamental right, the Supreme Court has the
supreme power to guard the rights mentioned in the constitution. Thus, it has the power to set
aside the acts of legislature if it violates the freedom guaranteed under constitution. Thus, the
disputed statute does not stand the test of fairness and therefore void.

CHAPTER III

CONCLUSION:

Enabling statutes is important to ensure that provisions are in place which gives the program
and its representatives clear legal authority to access facilities and records. When problems
with access arise, the enabling statutes are used as the tools to resolve these issues quickly.
Those tools include the authority of the program or some other entity in the state. Thus, to
draw conclusion it can be said that if the subordinate or delegated legislation goes beyond the
scope of authority concerned on the delegate or it is in conflict with the Parent or Enabling
Act, it is called substantive ultra vires. The validity of the subordinate or delegated legislation
may be challenged before the Courts on this ground. It is a mechanism to curb down the
exploitation of power by the administrative authority as we all know that “power corrupts and
absolute power corrupts absolutely”. However in this field there is lack of development and
there is no substantial change in the concept all though the changing nature of the current
legislative method has widen the horizon of the power of the authority by giving them power
to act according to the need of the time, even sometimes travelling beyond the restrictions.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Prof. T. Bhattacharyya,The Interpretation Of Statutes, 9th Edition, 2014

Vepa P. Sarathi, Interpretation Of Statutes (2003).

P.M.Bakshi ,Interpretation Of Statutes, 2008, Reprint 2012