The Calcutta Weekly Notes April 9 1951

32 of the Costitution alleging that the impugned Act contravened Articles 14 19 and 31 of the Constitution and the contention was that the enactment was unconstitutional and void and the interference by the Goverment in the affairs of the Company was uauthorised and illegal. [...] The contention of the Petitioner was that the Sholapur Act was a piece of discriminatory legislation which offended against the provisions of Art. [...] The alternative is to give effect to the presumption of constitutionality unless it can be said that the impugned enactment is manifestly unreasonable in the opinion of the ideal average man of ordinary prudence or opposed to the letter of the Constitlion or its spirit bearing in mind inter alia the Directive Principles of State Policy. [...] The Petitioner a share-holder of the Company complained that the impugned Act and the action of the Government of Bombay pursuant thereto had infringed the fundamental rights conferred on the Petitioner by Arts. [...] The Petitioner being a share-holder of the Copany a discussion of the fundamental right of the Company as such would he outside the purview of the enquiry in the present case which must he limited to the rights of the Petitioner as a share-holder.