RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) WHILE amending the Kandla Port Trust (Licensing of Stevedores) regulations, 1988, has any unreasonable restriction been placed on the fundamental rights of the petitioners to carry on their business of stevedoring ? What relationship should be there between the amount of licence fee and the services rendered ? These are some of the questions which arise in this petition. The man petition (Spl. C. A. No. 1196 of 1990) is filed by Kandla Stevedores association Ltd. and other companion matters are filed by individual members of the Association. In all the petitions identical questions of facts and law arise and hence at the request of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties all the matters are orders to be heard together. ( 2 ) THE petitioners pray that Regulations No. 4 (b), 6 (2) and 6 (3) of the kandla Port Trust (Licensing of Stevedores) Regulations, 1988 be held invalid and ultra vires the provisions of Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the same place unreasonable restriction on their fundamental rights to carry on the trade and business. The Regulations are framed under the provisions of Sec. 123 (f) to (g) of the Major Port Trusts, 1963 (hereinafter "the Act" for short ). The Regulations have been amended by notification dated 3/01/1989. Regulation 4 (b) reads as follows :"4. Production of Evidence of capacity to do stevedoring work :- No licence of work as a stevedore shall be granted unless the applicant : (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . (b) Products evidence of his financial standing to meet the obligations to the workers and staff employed on account of wages and Compensation Act, 1923, payment of Wages Act, 1947, or any of the law for the time being in force, and makes a deposit of Rs. one lakh cash or any other acceptable security which will be refunded/discharged after the termination/expiry of the licence. "regulation 6 (2) and (3) read as follows : (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . (2) The applicant shall pay a licence fee of Rs. 4,500. 00 (Rupees four thousand and five hundred only) before the licence is issued or renewed. Every licenced stevedores shall deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000. "regulation 6 (2) and (3) read as follows : (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . (2) The applicant shall pay a licence fee of Rs. 4,500. 00 (Rupees four thousand and five hundred only) before the licence is issued or renewed. Every licenced stevedores shall deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000. 00 (Rupees five thousand only) as earnest money for the proper performance of work permitted under the licence. The earnest money will not carry any interest and will be refunded when the licence ceases to operate after adjusting the claims, if any, of the Board. (3) The applicant shall also produce a Bank Guarantee for rupees one lakh to be valid during the currency of the stevedoring licence (not less than two years) so as to meet any contingency. " ( 3 ) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that as required under the provisions of Sec. 124 (4) of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 the regulations should have been placed before each of the House of parliament and since this condition is not fulfilled the same are not legally valid. In this connection it is stated in the affidavit-in-reply filed by one shri N. N. Kewalramani, Acting Traffic Manager of respondent-Kandla Port trust, that the Regulations have been placed before both the Houses of parliament in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 124 (4) of the Act. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent states that the Regulations were placed before the Loksabha on 8/03/1989 and were placed before rajyasabha on 9/03/1989. In view of this statement, the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not press this contention. ( 4 ) IT is submitted that since the year 1969, the licence fee was Rs. 250/ - only. Now by virtue of amendment of the Regulations, the licence fee is sought to be raised to Rs. 4,500. 00. Moreover, a stevedore is required to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,000. 00 as earnest money for the proper performance of the work permitted under the licence. Therefore, it is contended that without there being any increase in the facilities provided and the services rendered, there is no justification for the increase in the licence fee. It was sought to be argued that there will be substantial revenue out of the licence fee. Therefore, it is contended that without there being any increase in the facilities provided and the services rendered, there is no justification for the increase in the licence fee. It was sought to be argued that there will be substantial revenue out of the licence fee. Therefore, increase in the licence fee cannot be sustained. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Synthetics and Chemicals ltd. v. State of U. P. , reported in 1990 (1) SCC 109 . In that case the question arose with regard to the constitutional validity of the levies imposed by the State government of U. P. and other State Government on industrial alcohol (one which is used by the industries for manufacturing products where alcohol is the raw material ). It is a decision of seven Judges Bench of the Supreme Court. In a separate, but concurring judgment rendered by Honble Justice Oza, it has been inter alia observed that where the revenue earned is substantial it may not be justifiable as a fee. Such a levy must then find justification as a tax under any of the taxing entries in the legislative lists. (Paras 109 and 110 of the reported judgment ). ( 5 ) ON the basis of the these observations it is submitted that in the instant case also there will be substantial earning out of licence fee and therefore, the same cannot be justified. In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent-Port Trust it is specifically mentioned that the Port Trust provides facilities and renders services to the licence holders. It is also disclosed that the Port Trust incurs expenditure on establishment and for engagement of staff. There is no basis whatsoever in the petition to come to a conclusion that simply because there is substantial increase in the licence fee there would be substantial earning. It is not the case of the petitioners that the State has no power or authority to enact the Regulations under challenge nor it is contended that tax is being levied in guise of licence fees and deposits. The sovereign State has power to legislate on all branches except to the limitation as to division of powers between the Centre and State and also subject to the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The sovereign State has power to legislate on all branches except to the limitation as to division of powers between the Centre and State and also subject to the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The sovereign power is plenary and inherent to do all things which promote health, peace, morals, education and good order of the people. 5a. Erosions in rupee value cannot be lost sight of. In the year 1969 the licence fee was Rs. 250. 00, but the same has been increased by amendment in regulations brought in the year 1989 only. The increase in fees, should be examined in light of the erosion in rupee value. Even if it is assumed that there is no increase in the facilities provided and the services rendered, the nexus between the amount of licence fee and the facilities provided as well as the services rendered does exist. As held by the supreme Court in the case of Sreenivasa General Traders v. State of A. P. , reported in AIR 1983 SC 1246 , all that is necessary is that there should be a reasonable relationship between the levy of the fee and the services rendered. In para 30 of the of the judgment, the Supreme Court has in terms held that the co-relationship expected between the levy of fee and the services rendered is one of general character and not of mathematical exactitude. ( 6 ) IF in the year 1969 when the licence fee was Rs. 250. 00 only, the co-relationship between the services rendered and the licence fee could exist, the same would and should exist, today also when the licence fee is increased. The increase in licence fee can be justified on the ground of considerable erosion in the intrinsic value of the rupee. In the last 20 years, the intrinsic value of the rupee has been considerably eroded. Consequently the expenditure to be incurred and the payments to be made to the staff of the Port Trust also must have been increased substantially. Therefore, simply because there is increase in the licence fee, it is not possible to jump to the conclusion that the ris in licence fee will lead to earning in revenue. Consequently the expenditure to be incurred and the payments to be made to the staff of the Port Trust also must have been increased substantially. Therefore, simply because there is increase in the licence fee, it is not possible to jump to the conclusion that the ris in licence fee will lead to earning in revenue. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sreenivasa General Traders (supra) once reasonable relationship between the amount of fee and the services rendered is established, the levy of fee can be justified. In the instant case court do not think that the licence fee of Rs. 4,500. 00 is in any way unjustified. ( 7 ) SAME is the position with regard to the earnest money deposit of rs. 5,000/ -. A stevedore is required to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,000/ - for proper performance of the work permitted under the licence. This is merely a deposit. This is a sort of caution money. So long as the licence holder continues to perform his obligation under the licence, the amount remains with the Port Trust authorities. At the end of the licence period, if no damage is done to the implements of the property of the Port Trust the licence holder can certainly receive back the amount of earnest money deposited by him. Therefore, the provisions with regard to the deposit of earnest money also cannot be said to be in any way unjust or arbitrary. ( 8 ) IT is contended that production of evidence of capacity to do the stevedoring work and for that matter requirement to deposit an amount of rupees one lakh cash or any other acceptable security, amounts to unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right of the petitioners to carry on business of stevedoring work. By the very nature of the work, the property of the port Trust and the implements belonging to the Port Trust will be used by the Stevedores. In view of the labour legislations, in respect of the employees engaged by the stevedores, the Port Trust as a principal employer will be required to discharge liability in certain respects. By the very nature of the work, the property of the port Trust and the implements belonging to the Port Trust will be used by the Stevedores. In view of the labour legislations, in respect of the employees engaged by the stevedores, the Port Trust as a principal employer will be required to discharge liability in certain respects. A mere look at the provisions of Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 shows that the liability of the principal employer in case of fatal accident and in case of injuries resulting into 100 per cent disability may extend to near about a lakh of rupees. Therefore, the provisions made in Regulation 4 (b) and in Regulation 6 (3) with regard to furnishing of Bank guarantee for rupees one lakh cannot be said to be in any way unreasonable or arbitrary. Such requirements cannot be said to be unreasonable restriction on the petitioners right to carry on trade or business. It may be noted that if such requirement is not there, it would amount to asking for licence to trade or for carrying on business with all the profits for the licence holders and all the risks and costs to be borne by the Port Trust. Such contention cannot be accepted. ( 9 ) IT is submitted that in Regulation 4 (b) the provision is to the effect that one lakh cash be deposited or any other acceptable security be furnished. Therefore it is submitted that similar provisions should be introduced in regulation 6 (3) also which deals with production of Bank guarantee for one lakh rupees during the currency of stevedoring licence (not less than two years ). It is submitted that if the phrase "any other acceptable security" is introduced in Regulations 6 (3), it would be possible for the licence holders to offer security in the shape of immoveable property or any other solvent surety. However, the contention cannot be accepted. It is based on incorrect interpretation of the phrase "one lakh cash or any other acceptable security" occurring in Regulation 4 (b ). The phrase "other acceptable security" has to be interpreted in the light of the phrase "one lakh cash" which immediately precedes. In the context, the phrase "other acceptable security" would and should mean Bank guarantee, fixed deposit receipts, or some security which is almost like cash. The phrase "other acceptable security" has to be interpreted in the light of the phrase "one lakh cash" which immediately precedes. In the context, the phrase "other acceptable security" would and should mean Bank guarantee, fixed deposit receipts, or some security which is almost like cash. The phrase "other acceptable security" takes colour from the phrase "one lakh cash". The phrase "other acceptable security" cannot be made so elastic as to include solvent security of any type which may invite protracted litigations for the realisation of the same. Therefore this contention also fails. ( 10 ) IT was contended that cumulative effect of the increase in the licence fee and provisions for furnishing Bank guarantee is to place unreasonable restriction on the petitioners fundamental right to carry on their business of stevedoring work. The contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the fundamental right under Art. 19 (1) (g) is subject to reasonable restriction which may be imposed by the State. The liberty of an individual to carry on business or trade as he likes is not absolute. There is no protection of the rights themselves unless there is a measure of control and regulations of the rights of each individual in the interest of all. However, while determining the reasonableness of restriction, the court is required to take into consideration the nature and condition prevailing in a particular trade. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sreenivasa General Traders v. State of A. P. , reported in AIR 1983 sc 1246 (para 18) it is evident that the factors to be taken into consideration by the Court while determining the reasonable of restriction would differ from trade to trade and no hard and fast rules concerning all trades can be laid down. In short, the pursuit of any lawful trade or business may be made subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be deemed essential by the legislature to be in the interest of the general public. ( 11 ) IF the question of reasonable restriction is examined from this angle, it may be noted that a stevedore is to perform the work of loading and unloading the ships. While doing this work, the Port Trust authorities are extending certain facilities and rendering certain services. In the course of this work, risk to the human life is also involved. While doing this work, the Port Trust authorities are extending certain facilities and rendering certain services. In the course of this work, risk to the human life is also involved. Therefore in the interest of general public, if restrictions are imposed and the trade is regulated, it can never be said that the same is unreasonable. On the contrary the restriction and/or regulation imposed has nexus with the public interest to be achieved. The exact performance of the obligations under the licence are ensured as well as safety of the property and the workmen engaged in the work is also ensured. In case of any damage being caused or loss being occurred, adequate safeguards are ensured so that the Port trust authorities have not to bear the burden. In this view of the matter, the restriction placed and the regulation imposed cannot be said to be in any way unreasonable. ( 12 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the kerala High Court in C. M. P. No. 24811 of 1988 in O. P. 8043 of 1988 issued notice and granted interim relief and therefore this Court also may admit the matter and grant interim relief. Be it noted that the Kerala high Court has not admitted the petition. Just as this High Court issued notice, the Kerala High Court had also issued notice. That happened some time in the month of October, 1988. Thereafter what has happened in the matter before Kerala High Court is not stated before us. Even assuming for a moment that some other High Court has admitted a matter pertaining to the same subject-matter, then even it is not a ground to admit the matter by this High Court. Admission and rejection of a matter is to be on the basis of the points that may be urged before this Court. As stated hereinabove there is no substance in any of the points raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. ( 13 ) IN the result the petition is summarily rejected. Notice discharged. Ad interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. .