http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: AMADALAVALASA COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL &INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY L

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: U.O.I.

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/11/1975

BENCH: MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN BENCH: MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN RAY, A.N. (CJ) UNTWALIA, N.L.

CITATION:  1976 AIR  958            1976 SCR  (2) 731  1976 SCC  (2) 934  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1983 SC 751  (2)  F          1988 SC1020  (8)

ACT:      Constitution  of   India,  Art  19(1)(f)(g)  31(1)-359- Proclamation  of   Emergency-Whether  Statutes  made  during Emergency  can   be  challenged   under  Article  19-Whether liability created  during emergency  by  statutes  violating Art. 19  can be  enforced after the revocation of emergency- General Clauses  Act,   ,. sec.  6 Emergency  Risks  (Goods) Insurance Act, 1962-Emergency Risks ‘’ (Factories) Insurance Act, 1962-Liability  to pay  deficit  premium  dependent  on quantification of  evaded premium-Whether  liability to  pay deficit premium  conditioned by insurer’s ability to issue a supplementary policy  Distinction between  a compulsory  and voluntary insurance.

HEADNOTE:      The President  of India after the Chinese aggression in 1962,  proclaimed   emergency  under   Article  352  of  the Constitution. The  Parliament  passed  the  Emergency  Risks (Goods,)  Insurance   Act,  1962  and  the  Emergency  Risks (Factories) Insurance  Act, 1962, which came into force from 1-1-1963. It  was realised after the Chinese aggression that it was  necessary to  make  provision  for  reinstating  the factories  damaged   or  ruined  by  enemy  action  and  for reimbursing the  less or  damage of  goods and  continue the commercial and  economic activity  with a  view to stabilize the economy  of the  country. The  Acts, therefore, provided for compulsory insurance of factories and goods against loss or damage  sustained  by  enemy  action.  The  Acts  further provided that  if any  person failed  to insure the goods or factories or  insured for  a  lesser  value  than  what  was required by  the Acts  and thereby evaded the payment by way of   permium such  amounts would  be payable by such person. Proclamation of  Emergency was  revoked by  the President on 10-9-1968. After the expiry of the acts, notices were issued to the  appellants  stating  that  they  evaded  payment  of Emergency Risk  Insurance Premia  in  respect  of  goods  or factories by undervaluing the goods or factories.      The appellant  filed a writ petition, in the High Court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

challenging the said notices which were allowed by a learned Single Judge  on the  ground that  after P the expiry of the Acts there  could be  no authorised officer to determine the quantum, of  the evaded  premia on the basis, of the correct value of  the goods  or factories. In an appeal the Division Bench of  the High  Court held that the liability to pay the evaded premia arose during the currency of the Acts and that the extent  of the  liability could  be  ascertained  by  an authorised officer even after the expiry of the Acts.      In the  present appellant  filed said  judgment of  the Division Bench is challenged. G The appellants contended:      1.   That the  liability to  pay the  evaded premia was           dependent on  the ascertainment  by the authorised           officer of  the insurable  value of the factory or           goods and  that until  the extent of the liability           was so  ascertained there can be no liability and,           therefore, section  6 of  the General  Clauses Act           was not attracted.      2.   The  provisions   of  the   Acts  contravened  the           Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. 732 ^      HELD: (1) The duty to take out insurance policy for the full insurable  value of  the factory or goods was mandatory and that  the failure to do so was an offence. To effectuate this  purpose   the  procedure   for  determination  of  the insurable value  of the  factory or goods and of the premium evaded was  provided. The  scheme of the insurance envisaged by the  Acts was different from a voluntary insurance. There was no  element of  consensus on  the fundamental  terms  of insurance. The  liability to  take insurance  policy for the full insurable value of the factory or goods was compulsory. Terms and conditions of the policy to be taken were governed solely by  the provisions  of the  Acts and the schemes. The liability to  pay premia  in case of under-valuation was not dependent  on  the  subsequent  determination  of  the  full insurable  value  of  the  factory  or  goods  insured.  The decision in  the case  of Ekambarappa  v. Excess Profits Tax officer holding  that the  liability for  excess profits tax arose at  the close  of the  accounting  year  and  was  not dependent upon  its ascertainment  by order of assessment is approved. [737 B, C, D, F,G]      (2) The  argument that  the liability  to pay premia on the basis  of the  full insurable  value in  case of  under- insurance was conditioned by the capacity on the part of the insurer to  issue  a  supplementary  policy  negatived.  The obligation to insure for full insurable value was obligation which was  not dependent upon corresponding liability of the insurer to indemnity. [738 B-E]      (3) Since  the liability  to pay the premia on the full insurable value  was incurred  before the expiry of the Act, section 6  of the  General  Clauses  Act  would  enable  the ascertainment of  the extent  of liability for evaded premia by an  officer who  was authorised when the Act was in force or by an officer authorised after the expiry of the Act. The principle behind  section 6  of the  General Clauses  Act is that all  the provisions,  of the  Acts would  continue  ill force for  purposes of enforcing the liability incurred when the  Acts   were  in  force  and  any  investigation,  legal proceeding, remedy, may be instituted, continued or enforced as if the Acts had not expired. [738 G-H]      (4) Article  19 is  not available  to the petitioner as these Acts  were passed during the proclamation of Emergency under Article  352. The  liability incurred  being  acts  or omissions  during   the  currency  of  the  proclamation  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

emergency f  cannot be  nullified even if it be assumed that provisions of  the Acts  were violative  of Article  19. The procedure for  ascertaining correct  insurable value  of the factory  or   goods  is  reasonable  having  regard  to  the previsions of  Third Schedule  in that  behalf  and  cannot, therefore, violate Article 19(1)(f) or (g). [739 B, D-E]      (5) The  petitioners were  not deprived of any property without the  authority  of  law.  There  is,  therefore.  no violation of Article 31(1). The‘provisions are not violative of any provisions in Part III of the Constitution. [739 F)

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 461 of 1971.        Under article 32 of the Constitution of India                             AND      Civil Appeals  Nos. 506-510,  842-844, &  1710-1713  of 1971      From the Judgment and order dated the 12-3-1970 and 27- 4-1971 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. Nos. 360-364 of 1970,  4365-4366/69, 2704/71  and  295,  297-298,  301/70 respectively.                             AND           Civil Appeals Nos. 2319 to 2354 of 1972      From the  Judgment and order dated the 24-2-1971 of The Madras High  Court in  Writ Petitions Nos. 1794, 2544, 2563, 2570. 733 2598, 2600,  2634, 2635, 2636, 2642, 2643, 2644, 2764, 2795, 2806. 2807,  3409, 3459,  3679, 3698  and 3699  of 1969, and 161, 162,  307, 308,  1071, 1512,  1514, 1779,  2279,  2282, 2283, 2285, 3164, 3534 and 3535 of 1970 respectively.      A. V.  Koteswara Rao  and K. Rajendra Chowdhary for the Petitioners (In W.P. No. 461/71).      B. Sen, G. S. Rama Rao for the Appellants (in CAs. Nos. 506510 and 1710 to 1713/71).      Naunit Lal, K. Srinivasamurthy and Lalita Kohli for the Appellants (In  CAs. Nos.  2319-2354/72) and for Respondents (In CAs: Nos. 506 to 510 and 842 to 844/71).      Gopalaratnam and  A. T.  M. Sampath for the Respondents (In CAs. Nos. 2328, 2332, 2343 and 2337/72).      B. Sen  S. Gopalakrishnan  (Mrs.) for  Respondents  (In CAs. Nos. 2323-2327, 2331, 2335-36, 2342 and 2344-47/72).      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      MATHEW, J.-We  first take  up for  consideration  Civil Appeals Nos. 506-510 of 1971.      The appellants  in these  appeals filed  writ petitions before  the   Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court  questioning  the validity of  notices issued  by the  2nd respondent  therein under the  Emergency Risks  (Goods) insurance Act (Act 62 of 1962) and the Emergency Risks (Factories) Insurance Act (Act 63  of   1962)  (hereinafter   referred  to   as  the  Acts, collectively and  individually as  ’the Goods  Act’ and ’the Factories Act’  respectively). The  impugned notices  stated that the  appellants had  evaded payments of emergency risks insurance premia  in respect  of goods  or factories, is the case may  be, by undervaluing the goods or factories for the purpose of  insuring them  under the  Acts. A learned Single Judge of  the High  Court allowed  the writ petitions on the ground that, after the expiry of the Acts, there could be no authorized officer  to determine  the quantum  of the evaded premia on  the basis  of the  correct value  of the goods or factories. Appeals  were filed  against the  orders,  and  a Division Bench of the Court, by a common judgment, held that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

the liability  to pay  the evaded  premia arose  during  the currency of  the Acts  and that  the extent of the liability could be  ascertained by  authorized officer  even after the expiry of  the Acts  and allowed  the appeals. These appeals are directed against the common judgment.      The President of India, after the Chinese aggression in October, 1962,  proclaimed an Emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution on 26-10-1962. The proclamation was revoked by the President on 10-1-1968. The Acts came into force with effect from 1-1-1963.      The  Acts  were  in  substance  similar  to  War  Risks Insurance Acts  which were  in force  in the  United Kingdom during the Second World 734 War. It  was realised  after the  Chinese aggression that it was necessary to make provision, if possible on war footing, for reinstating  the factories  damaged or  ruined by  enemy action and  for reimbursing  the loss or damage of goods and continue the commercial and economic activity with a view to stabilize the  economy  of  the  country.  In  view  of  the magnitude of  the task,  no private  agency in  the field of insurance could have undertaken it. By the Acts, the Central Government   undertook the  task of  insuring factories  and goods against loss damage sustained by enemy action.      The Acts in substance provided for compulsory insurance against emergency risks of every person carrying on business as a seller or supplier of goods in respect of the insurable goods, which  were from time to time owned or deemed to have been owned  by him  in the  course of  such business, if the insurable value of such goods lying in one and the same city or district  exceeded Rs.  30,000/-  and  of  all  factories falling within  the purview  of  the  Factories,  1948.  The schemes  framed  under  the  Acts  provided  for  procedural matters relating  to the  mode of valuation of the insurable goods and  assets, receipt  of applications for the issue of policies, payment  of  premium,  the  terms  and  conditions attaching to  such policies  and settlement  of  claims  and other matters.      The provisions  of the  two  Acts  were  more  or  less similar. We  would now  refer to  certain provisions  of the ’Factories. Act’. Under s. 1(3) of that Act, it was provided that the  Act would  remain in  force during  the period  of operation of  the proclamation of emergency issued on 26-10- 1962 and  for such  further period as the Central Government might declare  to be the period of emergency for the purpose of the  Act. It  was also  provided in that section that the expiry of  the Act shall not affect anything done or omitted to be  done before  such expiry  and s.  6  of  the  General Clauses Act, 1897, shall apply upon the expiry of the Act as if it were repealed by a Central Act.      Section 2(f)  of that  Act defined ’insurable value’ of property as the value of the property as ascertained for the purpose of  insurance under  the Act.  Section 2(j)  defined ’quarter’ as  meaning a period of three months commencing on the first day of January, April, July or October and s. 2(i) defined ’emergency risks’.      Section 3  of that Act empowered the Central Government to put  into operation  a scheme  called the "Emergency Risk (Factories)  Insurance   Scheme",  where   by  the   Central Government would  undertake, in  relation to  factories, the liability of  insuring  property  against  emergency  risks. Under s.  3(3) (a),  the liability of the Central Government as insurer  did not  extend to  more than 80 per cent of the insurable value  of the  property insurable.  Under s.  3(3) (c), the  premium under  a policy was payable at a rate not-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

exceeding 3  per cent per annum of the sum insured as may be specified in  the scheme.  Section 3(7)  enjoined that every scheme shall  be laid  before each House of Parliament for a total period of thirty days. 735      Section 5(1) said that while a scheme was in operation, every owner  of  a  factory  shall  take  out  a  policy  of insurance against  emergency risk, issued in accordance with the scheme,  for a  sum not less than the insurable value of the property,  and, if any owner of factory failed to fulfil the obligation  under s.  5(1) and failed to pay the premium on the  policy which  was subsequently due, he was liable to be convicted  of an  offence under  s. 5(4), punishable with fine and,  that would  be without  prejudice  to  any  other penalty or liability incurred in consequence of the failure.      Section 6  placed restrictions  on carrying  on certain insurance business.  By s.  7, the  Central  Government  was authorised  to   create  an   "Emergency  Risks  (Factories) Insurance Fund".  The  Central  Government  was  authorized, under s.  8, to require the owner or occupier to furnish any document or  information  to  a  person  authorized  by  it. Section 11  provided that  where any  person had  failed  to insure as  or to  the full  amount, required by the Act, and had thereby  evaded the  payment by  way of  premium of  any money which  would have  had to pay but for such failure, an officer authorized  in that behalf by the Central Government might determine  the amount the payment of which had been so evaded. The  amount so  determined shall  be payable by such person and shall be recoverable from him as provided in sub- section (2)  of s.  11. And  sub-section (2) stated that any installment of  premium due  on a policy of insurance issued under the  scheme and any amount determined as payable under sub-section (1)  shall be  recoverable as  an arrear of land revenue and  shall be  a first  charge on  the  property  in respect of  which the default was made. Section 11(3) stated that a  person against  whom a  determination is  made under sub-section (1)  could, within  the period  specified in the scheme, appeal  against such  determination to  the  Central Government, whose decision therein shall be final.      Now we  will note  a few  relevant  provisions  of  the Emergency Risk  (Factories) Insurance Scheme. The Scheme was put into operation with effect from 1-1-1963. In clause 6 of the Scheme it was provided that an application for insurance should be  made in the form set out in Part A or Part of the First Schedule  thereto according as the application was for the original  or supplementary policy, and that it should be made to  the government  agent or  such other officer of the government agent  as might  be authorized  by that  agent in this behalf  and the  application must  be accompanied  by a treasury challan  evidencing the  payment of  the  requisite premium into the Government treasury.      Clause 7  pertained  to  the  method  of  valuation  of insurable property. It laid down that the insurable value of the property  shall be  ascertained in  accordance with  the principles mentioned  therein. Clause  8 fixed  the rate  of premium to  be 25  paise   for every  100 rupees or any part thereof in respect of the quarter ending 31-3-1963. Clause 9 related to  issue of  policy and  verification  of  previous policies. Clause  12  mentioned  the  date  from  which  the policies would be effective. 736      Clause 13(1)  provided that where any person had failed to pay  any premium  due from him or to insure as, or to the full amount,  required by the Act and had thereby evaded the payment by  way of  premium of any money which he would have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

had to  pay but for such failure, the amount evaded shall be determined in  accordance with  the Third Schedule; and sub- clause (2)  provided for  appeal against  the determination. Sub-clause (3)  of clause  13 stated  that where  the amount determined under  the provisions  of sub-clause  (1) or sub- clause (2)  was fully recovered, the government agent shall, as soon  as possible after such recovery, send the requisite application  forms  to  the  defaulter  for  completion  and return, and  a policy  or supplementary policy in respect of the property  concerned according  as the  recovery  was  in respect of  non-insurance or under-insurance shall be issued by the  government  agent  on  receipt  of  the  application correctly filled in, the said policy being made out so as to take effect from the date the amount was fully recovered.      Clause 16  declared that  the insured person shall bear 20 per  cent of the loss or damage. It also declared that if the total  value of  the property  insured exceeded  the sum insured, the  insured person  shall be considered as his own insurer for the excess as well as for 20 per cent of the sum insured.      The First  Schedule to  the Scheme  contained forms  of applications for  a policy or supplementary policy and other matters. The Second Schedule gave a model form of the policy to be Issued.      According  to   the  Third   Schedule,  the  authorized officer, when  he k  had reason to believe that the owner or occupier of  any property insurable under the Act had failed to pay any premium and had thereby evaded the payment by way of premium  of any  money which he would have had to pay but for such  failure, the  officer may  serve on  such owner or occupier a  notice requiring him to show cause why he failed to insure  the property or to full amount as required by the Act and  further to  produce before the officer on such date any document  or other  evidence in support of his case. The officer, after  providing him  an opportunity of being heard shall assess  the insurable  value of  the property  and the amount of premium, the payment of which had been evaded. The Schedule  made   provisions  for   appeal  to   the  Central Government.      The provisions  of the  Scheme framed  under the ’Goods Act’ were practically the same.      The appellants challenged the finding of the High Court that the liability to pay the evaded premia arose during the currency of the Acts and contended that the liability itself was dependent on the ascertainment by the authorized officer of the insurable value of the factory or goods in accordance with the  Third Schedule  and that  until  the extent of the liability was  so ascertained,  there could  be no liability and so,  s.   of the General Clauses Act was not attracted. In other  words, the contention was that until the liability of the  insured was  determined by the authorized officer by ascertaining the correct 737 insurable value  in accordance  with the  provisions of  the Third Schedule  no liability  to pay the evaded premia arose and therefore,  no liability  was incurred before the expiry of the  Acts which could be enforced under the provisions of s. 6 of the General Clauses Act after their expiry.      It is  clear from  the provisions  of the Acts that the duty to  take out  insurance policy  for the  full insurable value of  the factory  of goods  was mandatory  and that the failure to  do so  was an  offence. Besides,  in the case of failure to  insure for  the full insurable value, provisions were made for recovery of the relative premia. To effectuate this  purpose,   the  procedure  for  determination  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

insurable value  of the  factory or  goods and of the premia evaded was also provided.      There is  no compulsion  in a  voluntary insurance that the cover  should be  made for the entire insurable value of the property. The premium collected in a voluntary insurance is related  to the  quantum of  the risk  undertaken in  the light of  the insurable  value  suggested  by  the  insured. Generally, in  a voluntary insurance, the premium is paid in consideration of the cover provided. In other words, premium is paid  in order  to enable  the insurer  to indemnify  the insured against  loss or  damage  on  account  of  the  risk specified. The scheme of insurance envisaged by the Acts was different.  There   was  no  element  of  consensus  on  the fundamental terms  of insurance in the scheme. The liability to take insurance policy for the full insurable value of the factory or goods was compulsory. The terms and conditions of the  policy   to  be  taken  were  governed  solely  by  the provisions of  the Acts  and the Schemes. It is a mistake to assume that  the rights  and liabilities  of the  parties in this statutory  scheme were  similar to those of a voluntary contract  of   insurance.  If  the  liability  to  take  the insurance policy  for the  full insurable value was absolute and if the terms and conditions of insurance were settled by the terms  of the  statutes and  the Schemes  read with  the Schedules, there  is no  merit in  the contention of counsel for the  appellants that  the obligation of the President as insurer was  same as  that of  an insurer  in a  contract of voluntary insurance. The liability to pay premia ill case of under-valuation  was   not  dependent  upon  the  subsequent determination of  the full insurable value of the factory or goods insured.  If the  factory or  goods was  under-valued, when the  insurance policy  was taken,  the liability to pay premia on the basis of the full insurable value arose at the time when  the policy  was taken.  That  liability  was  not dependent upon the ascertainment of the full insurable value by the  authorized officer  in  accordance  with  the  Third Schedule.      In Ekambarappa  v. Excess  Profits Tax officer(ll) this Court held  that the  liability for excess profits tax arose at the  close of  the accounting  year and was not dependent upon its  ascertainment by  an order  of assessment.  In the same way,  the liability  to pay  the premia on the basis of the full insurable value of the factory or goods insured was incurred Acts and the schemes were in operation. ’The           (1) [1967] 3 S.C.R. 864. 738 liability to  pay premia  on the basis of the full insurable value  of   the  factory   or  goods   is  one   thing;  the quantification of the amount is another.      But it  was argued  that if  a policy was taken not for the full  in surable  value, the  authorized officer  should have ascertained  the cor  rect insurable  value within  the quarter and  a supplementary  policy should have been issued on the  basis of  the full  insurable value, also within the quarter, so that the liability to pay premia on the basis of the full  insurable value  might arise.  In other words, the argument was  that the  liability to pay premia on the basis of the  full insurable  value in case of under insurance was conditioned by  the capacity  on the  part of the insurer to issue a  supplementary policy within the quarter undertaking to indemnify  the insured  on the basis of the correct value against emergency  risks, and, as the insurer ceased to have the capacity after the expiry of the quarter, and a fortiort after the  expiry of  the Acts,  to  issue  a  supplementary policy undertaking  the liability  to indemnify against loss

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

arising out  of emergency  risk, on  the basis  of the  full insured value,  the obligation  to pay  premia on  the  full insurance value  ceased, as,  after the  expiry of the Acts, there could no longer be any emergency risk.      We do  not think  that the  argument is  correct. As we said, the  obligation to  insure for full insurable value of the factory  or  goods  was  an  obligation  which  was  not dependent upon the corresponding liability of the insurer to indemnify. If  the owner  of factory or goods failed to take insurance policy  at the  time he ought to have taken it and pay the  premia, the  liability of  the insured  to pay  the premia could  be enforced under clause 13 or 14 respectively of the Schemes under the ’Goods Act’ or the ’Factories Act’. In such  a case  there would be no obligation on the part of the President  to indemnify  the insured  in case of loss or damage on account of emergency risk the insured did not take out the  policy of  insurance. The  obligation to  issue the policy or  supplementary policy,  as the  case may be, would arise only  after payment  or recovery of the evaded premia, and   even then,  the liability  of the  insurer  under  the policy or  supplementary policy  would be  from the  date of payment  or   recovery  of  the  evaded  premia.  The  fact, therefore, that  no supplementary  policy was  issued before the expiry  of the  Acts is no answer for not fulfilling the obligation of  the insured  to pay  the premia in accordance with the  correct insurable value of the factory or goods as determined  under   the  Third   Schedule  to  the  Schemes. Therefore, if  under 6. S of the ’Factories Act’ or under s. 7 of the ’Goods Act’, the liability to pay the premia on the full insurable  value was  incurred before ’he expiry of the Act, s.  6 of  the General  Clauses  Act  would  enable  the ascertainment of  the extent  of liability  for  the  evaded premia by  an officer who was authorized when the Act was in force or  by an  officer authorised  after the expiry of the Act. The principle behind s. 6 of the General Clauses Act is that all  the provisions of the Acts would continue in force for purposes  of enforcing  the liability  incurred when the Acts were  in force and any investigation, legal proceeding, remedy, may  be instituted,  continued or enforced as if the Acts had not expired. 739      The Third  Schedule to  the Schemes  provides  for  the method of  ascertaining the  liability  in  case  of  under- insurance. The  provisions of  the Third  Schedule show that the officer  has to  give an  opportunity to  the insured to show cause  why he  should not  be made to pay the premia on the basis  of correct  value of  the factory  or goods under valued.      It was  contended for  the petitioner  in Writ Petition No. 461  of 971  that the provisions of the Acts contravened Articles 14, 19 and      Article 19  is not  available  to  the  petitioner  for challenging the  validity of  the provisions  of the Acts as these  Acts   were  passed   during  the   currency  of  the proclamation of  emergency under Article 352. No doubt, when the proclamation  of emergency  was  revoked  in  1968,  the provisions of the Acts became liable to be challenged on the ground that  they violated  Article 19(1); but the liability incured for  acts or  omissions during  the currency  of the proclamation of  emergency cannot be nullified even if it be assumed that  the provisions  of the  Acts were violative of Article 19.  In other  words, liability  crated by an act or omission when the Acts were in operation during the currency of the  proclamation of  emergency cannot be challenged even after the  revocation of the proclamation on the ground that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

the provisions  of the  Acts violated  Article 19.  This, we think, is  the principle  laid  down  by  this  Court  after reading Article  358 of  the constitution in Makhan Singh v. State of Punjab(1).      We also  think that  the procedure for ascertaining the correct  in  surable  value  of  the  factory  or  goods  is reasonable, having  regard to  the provisions  of the  Third Schedule in  that  behalf  and  cannot,  therefore,  violate Article 19(1)(f) or (g).      The writ petitioner has not shown how the provisions of the Acts violated Article 14.      And, as  regards the  contention of the petitioner that the provisions of the Acts violated Article 31(1), we do not think that  the petitioner  was  deprived  of  any  property without  the   authority  of  law.  he  petitioner  has  not succeeded in  showing law  the law which deprived him of his property could  be challenged  on the  ground  that  it  was violative of  any of  the provisions  in  Part  III  of  the Constitution;      We dismiss  Writ Petition  No. 461  of 1971  and  Civil Appeals Nos.  506-510, 842-844  and 1710-1713  of  1971  and allow Civil Appeals Nos. 2319-2364 of 1972 without any order as to costs. P.H.P                                Appeals partly allowed.      (1) [1964] 4 S.C.R. 797 at 812 740