DARUKA & CO. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DARUKA & CO. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The scheme for canalisation of mica export through the Corporation is a valid regulatory measure in public interest, does not amount to acquisition of business or property of traders, and does not infringe Articles 14, 19(1)(g), or 265. The levy of 1% as service charge is not a tax but consideration for services. The selection of the cut-off date and its subsequent relaxation were based on legitimate policy considerations to prevent hardship, not on arbitrary or mala fide motives. Exclusion of mica powder from canalisation is justified by industry development needs, constituting reasonable classification.

Parties
Petitioner: Daruka & Co.; Respondent: Union of India & Ors.; Respondent: Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
31 August 1973
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (original Jurisdiction) Under Article 32 / Final Decision by Supreme Court
Outcome
Petition dismissed.
Legal Topics
Export and Import Regulation, Reasonable Restrictions on Trade, Article 14 (equality Before Law), Article 19(1)(g) (freedom of Trade), Article 265 (taxation by Authority of Law), Canalisation of Exports
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Trade Law Export and Import Regulation Reasonable Restrictions on Trade Article 14 (equality Before Law) Article 19(1)(g) (freedom of Trade) Article 265 (taxation by Authority of Law) +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daruka & Co.

Petitioner

Union of India & Ors.

Respondent

Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (original Jurisdiction) Under Article 32 / Final Decision by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the canalisation of export of mica through the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation violates Article 14, Article 19(1)(g), and Article 265 of the Constitution of India.
  2. 2 Whether the 1% service charge is a tax or unreasonable restriction.
  3. 3 Whether exclusion of mica powder from canalisation is discriminatory under Article 14.

Ratio Decidendi

The scheme for canalisation of mica export through the Corporation is a valid regulatory measure in public interest, does not amount to acquisition of business or property of traders, and does not infringe Articles 14, 19(1)(g), or 265. The levy of 1% as service charge is not a tax but consideration for services. The selection of the cut-off date and its subsequent relaxation were based on legitimate policy considerations to prevent hardship, not on arbitrary or mala fide motives. Exclusion of mica powder from canalisation is justified by industry development needs, constituting reasonable classification.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed.

Orders

  • No costs awarded; parties to bear their own costs.