RASHBIHARI PANDA ETC. versus STATE OF ORISSA

RASHBIHARI PANDA ETC. versus STATE OF ORISSA

Schemes restricting the sale and disposal of Kendu leaves to previous contractors, excluding other traders and new entrants, are discriminatory and impose unreasonable restrictions on the right to carry on business, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g); such schemes are not protected by Article 19(6)(ii) as they do not serve public interest nor are they integrally and essentially connected to the monopoly; bona fides or errors of judgment by the Government do not validate the discriminatory scheme.

Parties
Appellant: Rashbihari Panda; Respondent: State of Orissa
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 January 1969
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Orissa High Court (special Leave)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; scheme declared invalid.
Legal Topics
State Trading Monopoly, Fundamental Rights, Trade Restrictions, Discrimination Under Article 14 and Article 19, Reasonableness of Restrictions
Constitutional Law Administrative Law State Trading Monopoly Fundamental Rights Trade Restrictions Discrimination Under Article 14 and Article 19 Reasonableness of Restrictions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rashbihari Panda

Appellant

State of Orissa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Orissa High Court (special Leave)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether schemes restricting advance purchase offers or tenders for Kendu leaves to previous year's licensees violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether State monopoly under Orissa Kendu Leaves (Control of Trade) Act, 1961 allows creation of monopoly for private benefit
  3. 3 Whether Government's bona fide or error of judgment constitute valid defenses to claim of discrimination

Ratio Decidendi

Schemes restricting the sale and disposal of Kendu leaves to previous contractors, excluding other traders and new entrants, are discriminatory and impose unreasonable restrictions on the right to carry on business, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g); such schemes are not protected by Article 19(6)(ii) as they do not serve public interest nor are they integrally and essentially connected to the monopoly; bona fides or errors of judgment by the Government do not validate the discriminatory scheme.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; scheme declared invalid.

Orders

  • Tenders for purchase of Kendu leaves to be invited by Government in the next season from all persons interested in the trade. No further order as contracts for 1968 had expired.
  • No order as to costs in all appeals.