C. Mathur, for the petitioners In W.P. No.
K. Daphtary, B. R. L. Iyengar, R. N. Banerjee, Ravinder Narain, J. B. Dadachanji and 0.
407 of 1968 .
A. Palkhivala, R. N. Banerjee, Ravinder Narain and J. Dadachanji and 0.
C. Mathur, for the petitioners in W.P. No.
The Gold Control Act, hereinafter called the impugned Act was passed by Parliament and received assent of the President on September 1, 1968.
K. Sen, J. C. Bhatt, R. N. Banerjee, Ravinder Narain, B. Dadachanji and 0.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. In these petitions which have been filed under art.
The impugned Act be ins with the following preamble, namely, an Act to provide in the economic and financial interests of the companymunity, for the companytrol of the production, manufacture, supply, distribution, use and possession of, and business in, gold, ornaments and articles of gold and for matters companynected therewith or incidental thereto.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petitions Nos.
282 of 1968 .
408 of 1968 .
Petition Under Art.
C. Setalvad, J. M. Mukhi, A. Sreedharan Nambiar and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondents in all the petitions .
282, 407 and 408 of 1968.
C. Mathur, for the petitioners in W.P. No.
32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of the fundamental rights.
32 of the Constitution a companymon question is presented for determination, namely, whether the Gold Control Act, 1968 Act No.
45 of 1968 is companystitutionally valid.
