Summary
For a long period of time prior to 1950 the text books for recognised schools in the State of Punjab were prepared by private publishers with their own money and under their own arrangements and they were submitted for the approval of the Government. The Government approved some books on each subject as alternative text books, leaving it to the discretion of the Head Masters of different schools to select any alternative book on each subject. In May 1950 books on certain subjects (like agriculture, history, social studies, etc.) were prepared and published by the Government themselves without inviting offers from private publishers.
With respect to other subjects, offers were invited from"publishers and authors". The alternative method was given up and only one text book on ,each subject was selected.The Government charged as royalty 5% on the sale price of all the approved text books. In 1952 a notification was issued by the Government which omitted the word "Publishers"altogether and invited only "authors and others" to submit books for approval by the Government. The "authors and others" whose books were approved, had to enter into an agreement in the form prescribed by the Government the principal term of the agreement was that the copyright in these books would vest absolutely in Government and the authors and others" would get a royalty of 5% on the sale price of the text books. It was contended that-the publishing, printing and selling of text books was thus taken by the Government exclusively into its own hands and the private publishers were altogether ousted from the business. The petitioners, who purport to carry on the business of preparing, printing, publishing and selling text books for recognised schools in the Punjab, pro29 226ferred the present petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution praying for writs of mandamus directing the Punjab Government to withdraw the notifications of 1950 and 1952 on the ground that they contravened the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under the Constitution.Held that the action of the Government, whether it was good or bad, does not amount to an infraction of the fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. In the present case no fundamental rights of the petitioners were violated by the notifications and the acts of the executive Government of the Punjab done by them in furtherance of their policy of nationalisation of the text books for the school students.A more chance or prospect of having particular customers cannot be said to be a right to property or to any interest or undertaking within the meaning of Art. 31(2) of the Constitution and no question of payment of compensation can arise because the petitioners have been deprived of the same.Articles 73 and 162 of the Constitution do not contain any definition as to what the executive function is and what activities would legitimately come within its scope. They are concerned primarily with the distribution of executive power between the Union on the one hand and the component States on the other. They do not mean-that it is only when Parliament or the State Legislature has legislated on certain items appertaining to their respective lists that the Union executive or the State executive, as the case may be,can proceed to function in respect of them. On the other hand, the language of Art. 162 Clearly indicates that the powers of the State executive do extend to matters upon which the State Legislature is competent to legislate and are not confined to matters over which legislation has been passed already. The same principle underlies Art. 73 of the Constitution.The Commonwealth and the Central Wool Committee v. The Colonial Combing, Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. (31 C.L.R.421), Attorney-General for Victoria v. The Commonwealth, (52C.L.R. 533) and Motilal 1. The Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh (A.I.R. 1951 Allahabad 257), referred to.See the full content of this document
Extract
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapurand Others VS. The State Of Punjab(And Connected Petitions).
PETITIONER: RAI SAHIB RAM JAWAYA KAPURAND OTHERS Vs.RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF PUNJAB(AND CONNECTED PETITIONS).DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/04/1955BENCH: ACT: Constitution of India, Arts. 19(1)(g), 73 and 162-Printing, publishing and selling of text books for recognised schools in the State of Punjab taken by the State Government exclusively in their own hands-Whether any fundamental right of the private publishers who were ousted from the business, contravened-Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution-Arts. 73 and 162-Whether contain any definition of executive function- Union executive or the State executive-Whether legislation by Parliament or State Legislature on certain items ap- pertaining to their respective lists, a condition precedent to the Union or State executive functioning in respect to them.JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petitions Nos. 652 of 1954 and 71 to 77 and 85 of 1955.Under Article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of fundamental rights.G. S. Pathak, (P. N. Mehta and G. C. Mathur, with him) for the petitioners in Petition No. 652 of 1.954.P. N. ~Mehta and G. ~0. ~Mathur, for the petitioners in Petitions Nos. 71 to 77 and 85 of 1955.227S.M. Sikri, Advocate-Generalfor the State of Punjab (Jindra Lal and P. G. Gokhale, with him) for the respondent in all petitions.1955. April 12. The following Judgments were delivered.PETITION NO. 652 OF 1954.MUKHERJEA C. J.-This is a petition under article 32 of the Constitution, preferred by six persons, who purport to carry on the business of preparing, printing, publishing and, selling text books for different classes in the schools of Punjab, particularly for the primary and middle classes, under the name and style "Uttar Chand Kapur & Sons". It is alleged that the Education Depar...
See the full content of this document