Judgment : The petitioner firm has filed the writ petition praying to issue a writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ declaring Rule 12(7)(v) of the Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Rules, as amended in G.O.Ms.No.657, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection, dated 7. 1990, as illegal, unconstitutional, ultra vires, void and unenforceable in so far as it relates to the petitioner herein and to pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper. 2. From the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would contend that it is carrying on the business of pawn broking in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and the rules made thereunder; that as per the provisions of the Act and Rules, the petitioner firm is entitled to bring the time barred articles to auction; that Rule 12 prescribes the procedure for conducting auction of the pledged articles; that Rule 12(7)(v) was amended under G.O.Ms.No.1259, Revenue, dated 25. 1981 and the said amended Rule was challenged before this Court in W.P.No.8690 of 1981 and by order dated 14. 1984, the learned single Judge of this Court was pleased to allow the writ petition holding that the amended Rule in so far as it relates to affixture, proclamation and obtaining of a certificate imposed unreasonable restriction offending Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 3. It is further averred in the writ petition that in an Appeal preferred by the State in Writ Appeal No.477 of 1985, the Division Bench of this Court held that the said Writ petitioner was an auctioneer and the impugned Rule did not offend any fundamental right of an auctioneer and, therefore, set aside the judgment of the single Judge; that against the order of the Division Bench dated 8. 1989, S.L.P. (Civil) No.14507 of 1989 had been filed in the Supreme Court of India by the auctioneer and by its order dated 27. 1990, it was pleased to order notice on the question of provision of effecting service and the matter is still pending. 4. Thewrit petitioner would further contend that in the mean while, the Government of Tamil Nadu have issued G.O.Ms.No.657, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection, dated 7. 1990, it was pleased to order notice on the question of provision of effecting service and the matter is still pending. 4. Thewrit petitioner would further contend that in the mean while, the Government of Tamil Nadu have issued G.O.Ms.No.657, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection, dated 7. 1990 bringing out fresh amendment to Rule 12(7)(v) which instead of remedying the defects pointed out in W.P.8690 of 1981, created further problems, since under the amended Rules, it is not open to the Pawn Broker to conduct auction of the pledged articles through the authorised auctioneer till the Village Administrative Officer certifies that the printed catalogue containing the auction notice was affixed and proclaimed at the last known address of the pawner, that in practice, when such an attempt is made for affixture or proclamation, great confusions are caused since in many cases, the pawners do not offer the correct address for reasons many and several other cases since the value of the pledged articles would be marginal, the cost of affixture and proclamation would exceed even the value of the pledged articles; that this Court has already held that the mode of service by affixture and proclamation is not practicable and, therefore, imposing such restriction would offend the fundamental right of a pawn broker to carry on his trade since the same cumbersome procedure has been re-introduced by the amendment of the Rule. 5. The further averments of the affidavit are that in Madras City, there is no Village Administrative Officer or Village Officer and Rule 12(7)(v) making a condition precedent to obtain the certificate of affixture or proclamation would virtually prevent the pawn brokers from exercising their right of auctioning the time barred articles; that Rule 12(7)(v) as amended under the impugned Government order is in violation of Arts.14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; that on account of the difficulties in getting the certificate from the Village Administrative Officer or the Village Officer especially in view of the fact that in Madras City, there is no Village Administrative Officer or Village Officer in spite of the third respondent according sanction in favour of the petitioner for auctioning the pledged articles, as per his proceedings in K.Dis.(VI) 54881/90-Dl, dated 8. 1990, the petitioner is not able to proceed with the auction. With these pleadings, the petitioner would ultimately pray for the relief as sought for in the writ petition. 1990, the petitioner is not able to proceed with the auction. With these pleadings, the petitioner would ultimately pray for the relief as sought for in the writ petition. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it would be contended that according to Rule 12(7)(v) of the Tamil Nadu Pawnbrokers Rules, 1944, as stood before 25. 1981, a copy of the printed catalogue of the properties to be sold in auction should be sent to the pawner by the auctioneer by registered post at least a week before the date fixed for sale; that this Court in W.P.No.2267 of 1976 has held on 14. 1979 that the said rule did not say that notice must be served on the pawner and hence allowed the writ petition. Since there was no provision in the Tamil Nadu Pawnbrokers Rules to ensure the service of the catalogue to the pawner, the said Rules 12(7)(v) was amended in G.O.Ms.No.1250, Revenue, dated 25. 1981 providing for affixture of the catalogue on a conspicuous place and for proclamation of the contents of the catalogue, in such cases where the catalogue so sent was returned undelivered, that the said provisions are in consonance with the provisions of O.5, Rule 20(1) and also O.21, Rule 54(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Thus the intention of the provisions made in Rule 12(7)(v) was to ensure that the time barred unredeemed articles were disposed of in public auction only with the knowledge of the pawner concerned and also based on the judgment made in W.P.No.2267 of 1976, dated 14. 1979. 7. Thefurther contentions of the counter affidavit of the respondents are that though it is true that the amendment issued in G.O.Ms.No.1259, Revenue, dated 25. 1981 on being challenged has got quashed by this Court in W.P.No.8690 of 1981, dated 18. 1984, holding that in so far as it related to affixture, proclamation and obtaining of a certificate etc. an unreasonable restriction is laid on the petitioners right to trade or occupation guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, still on a writ appeal filed by the Government in W.A.No.475 of 1985 a Division Bench of this Court reversed the finding on 8. an unreasonable restriction is laid on the petitioners right to trade or occupation guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, still on a writ appeal filed by the Government in W.A.No.475 of 1985 a Division Bench of this Court reversed the finding on 8. 1989 setting aside the order of the single Judge of this Court holding that the impugned rule does not in any way fetter any fundamental right of the auctioneer much less infringing Art.19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution in any manner; that it is only after the Division Bench judgment, the impugned G.O.Ms.No.657, dated 7. 1990 had been passed amending the Rule 12(7)(v) of the Tamil Nadu Pawnbrokers Rules. 8. The further contentions of the respondents are that in the mean while, S.L.P.(Civil No.14507 of 1989) had been filed by the auctioneer in the Supreme Court of India challenging the Rule 12(7)(v) as ordered in G.O.Ms.No.1259, Revenue, dated 20.5.1981 and the Apex Court issued notice on the limited question of provisions of effecting service; that the impugned G.O. was issued only to make specific provisions for entrusting the work of serving of the catalogue by affixture and proclamation for fixing a time bond programme for carrying out the complete process of these works, that it is false that there is no village Administrative Officer or village office in the City of Madras; that the procedure for conducting the auction of the pledged articles is laid down clearly in Rule 12 of the rules, that the petitioner can very well follow the procedure laid down by the said rule and obtain certificate of affixture and proclamation from the Village Administrative Officer or Village Officer, as the case may be having jurisdiction over the area; that none other contentions raised by the petitioner is tenable nor the relief sought for is sustainable under Art.226 of the Constitution of India and that the writ petition is devoid of merits and legal efficacy. With these contentions the respondent would pray for dismissing the writ petition as devoid of merits. 9. With these contentions the respondent would pray for dismissing the writ petition as devoid of merits. 9. During arguments, the learned senior counsel Sri.K.Duraisamy, appearing on behalf of the petitioner besides giving the history of the case would further contend that under the provisions of the rules, a licence is to be issued to auctioneer, who are working under the control of the revenue officials; that the Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition filed by the auctioneer against which on appeal, the Division Bench took, a technical view and set aside the order of the single Judge of this Court. Learned senior counsel would clarify that the said writ petition was filed by the auctioneer and not by the pawnbrokers and the difficulties being undergone by the pawnbrokers having not at all been considered therein; that in the S.L.P. filed by the auctioneer, the Apex Court ordered notice restricting to the provisions of service and the same is pending before the Apex Court. 10. Learned senior counsel continue to argue that in the mean time, the State Government has introduced the new amendment by the impugned Government Order. At this juncture, the learned senior counsel would bring out the reasons offered on the part of the single Judge in W.P.No.8690 of 1981. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner para. 12 of the said judgment is relevant and the same is extracted hereunder: The petitioners contention is that the amended rule imposes unreasonable restrictions in his fundamental right to carry on occupation, trade or business. I had referred to in detail the various aspects that were urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner to support his above contention. It is needless to state that Clause (6) of Art.19 enables the State to make any law imposing in the interest of general public reasonable restrictions on the petitioners right to carry on any occupation, trade or business. Thus if the restrictions are not reasonable, then the umbrage of protection extended to the State under Clause (6) will be lost and the law which imposed such restrictions, would be held to violate Art.19(g) of the Constitution. Therefore, the vital question is whether the amended rule only imposed reasonable restrictions. Thus if the restrictions are not reasonable, then the umbrage of protection extended to the State under Clause (6) will be lost and the law which imposed such restrictions, would be held to violate Art.19(g) of the Constitution. Therefore, the vital question is whether the amended rule only imposed reasonable restrictions. The petitioners apprehension that there will be risk to his person if he were to comply with affixture of a copy of the catalogue on a conspicuous place in the house of the pawner in which he is known to reside or to have last resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain and also of proclaiming the contents of printed catalogue by beat of drum or other customary mode, is not unfounded. It is too difficult to believe that after the pawner had vacated the premises, the inmates of one or more tenements in the building in which the pawner last resided, or is known to have resided, would remain unperturbed and unconcerned, on the other hand, it is easy to perceive that either they would not allow such affixture or proclamation being done or would conduct in such a manner that the auctioneer would be coerced to leave the place without either carrying out the affixture or proclamation as the case may be. No landlord of a building in which the tenant is residing or said to have resided, would tolerate of his building, with affixture of a whole catalogue particularly when it is colour washed or white washed. It is relevant to notice that unlike a bailiff who is an officer of court, the auctioneer does not possess such a status. It may be useful to point out at this stage that even the bailiff seeks protection of the police, particularly in cases where delivery of possession is involved. It is equally important to note that the police help is not given to the bailiff on mere asking by the plaintiff, but only on the orders passed by the court permitting the bailiff to take the police aid, do the police authorities provide police assistance to the bailiff. All these practical aspects were thoroughly lost sight of by the rule making authority. Further, there is nothing in the impugned rule as to how either the affixture or the proclamation could be carried out in the other States. All these practical aspects were thoroughly lost sight of by the rule making authority. Further, there is nothing in the impugned rule as to how either the affixture or the proclamation could be carried out in the other States. I have no difficulty to add that the petitioners apprehension is more well founded in this case than in the case of affixture and proclamation in this State itself (Tamil Nadu). Again if the pledged article is only worth about Rs.100 and less, is it worthwhile at all to insist upon such affixture and proclamation, because it might be that in all probability such cost would exceed the very valid of the articlee As already pointed out, by the petitioners as to who should bear the expenses, is not made clear in the rule. For, in the recovery of a paltry sum of Rs.100 and less, the auctioneer were to be compelled to expend more than the said sum. I see no difficulty in holding that such a restriction is wholly unreasonable. Above all, it would not be in the interest of the pawn broker, nor in the interest of the pawner to enforce the impugned rule. No doubt, the Advocate General referred to the Directive principles of State Policy contained in Part IV of the Constitution and vehemently contended that the unamended rule is to secure a social order for the promotion of the welfare of the people. It is true that the State shall as far as possible strive to promote the welfare of the people. But still the question is whether any rule or law which is brought about with the noble object of carrying out the Directive Principles of State Policy, curtails unreasonably the fundamental right of any citizen. It is needless to State that the Directive Principles of State Policy are not mandatory and cannot be enforced as such against the State. On the other hand, the fundamental right guaranteed to a citizen under Part III of the Constitution can be enforced save where there had been a reasonable restriction as visualised in the Constitution itself. It is needless to State that the Directive Principles of State Policy are not mandatory and cannot be enforced as such against the State. On the other hand, the fundamental right guaranteed to a citizen under Part III of the Constitution can be enforced save where there had been a reasonable restriction as visualised in the Constitution itself. I may at once add that if really the State wanted to observe the Directive Principles of State Policy in protecting the unfortunate pawners, it is for the state to have provided the machinery for either carrying out the affixture or the proclamation as envisaged under the impugned rule and to call upon the auctioneer to pay necessary charges. In such a case, I am clearly of the opinion that the rule cannot be held to interfere unreasonably with the fundamental right guaranteed to a citizen. It may be useful at this stage to refer to a particular stand taken in the counter affidavit. In paragraph 3 of the counter. It is stated that the impugned G.O., was issued only to make Rule 12(7)(v) of the Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Rules, 1944 in conformity with the provision in Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 54 and O.21, Civil Procedure Code, relating to ‘serve’ of notices before contemplating a sale. The above rule would not be an unreasonable restriction. For, any decree holder resorting to O.21 is enabled to have the services of the Officer employed by the Court either to serve notice by affixture or to do proclamation. The Code of Civil Procedure does not compel the decree holder himself to effect the service or do the proclamation. In other words, the machinery to carry out such service or proclamation is maintained by the court and the only duty of the decree holder is to pay the requisite charges into court. Admittedly, that is not what is expected of from the auctioneer under the impugned rule. Thus, even the analogy by reference to O.21, Civil Procedure Code would in no way help the respondents. Admittedly, that is not what is expected of from the auctioneer under the impugned rule. Thus, even the analogy by reference to O.21, Civil Procedure Code would in no way help the respondents. Citing the above paragraph of the judgment, the learned senior counsel would further state that the Division Bench has not reversed this judgment but what the Bench Stated was that there is no fundamental right of the pawn broker involved and in fact the Bench has approved the view of the single Judge in so far as it relates to the Pawn brokers but on different account and different angle it decided the matter. 11. In reply, learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that the S.L.P. has been filed by the petitioner and would cite the relevant portion of the Division Benchs order; that the S.L.P. has been preferred only by the auctioneer since the G.O. pertains only to the auctioneer, how the pawn brokers become aggrieved against the Government Order is not explained. It is the duty of the petitioner to explain how the pawn brokers are affected. Learned Additional Government Pleader would end up his arguments saying that neither any one of the valuable rights of the pawn brokers has become infringed much less offending Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India so as to invoke Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 12. In clarification, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would again contend that it is not correct to say that the rule relates to auctioneer and not to the pawn brokers; that the Division Bench has held it differently; that this preposition of the respondents goes against the order of the Division Bench of this Court; that the finding that it will end quarrel or expenses were only answered by the Division Bench as per its order; that there is an auctioneer, the Village Administrative Officer cannot deal with this work; that introduction of the Village Administrative Officer should only to remedy the situation; that so far as the operative portion of the order of there writ appeal is concerned, it is only a dismissal. 13. Assessing the facts and circumstances encircling the case it comes to be known that by the amending G.O.Ms.No.657, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 7. 13. Assessing the facts and circumstances encircling the case it comes to be known that by the amending G.O.Ms.No.657, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 7. 1990, the first respondent had attempted to clarify the procedure that is to be adopted by the auctioneer, at the time that the pawn broker brings unredeemed pledged articles to auction through the authorised auctioneer which could not be held unless either the Village Administrative Officer or the Village Officer Certificate that the printed catalogue containing the auction notice was affixed and proclaimed in the conspicuous part of the place of the last residence of the pawner and at the proclamation by beating of tom-tom in and around the last known address of the pawner is made. At this juncture. it is relevant to extract the impugned Government Order thereby introducing the amendment to the Rule 12(7)(v) of the Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Rules. “In the said Rules, in Rule 12, in Sub-Rule (7),- .(i) in clause (i)- .(a) for the expression” first fortnight of January“, the expression” first fortnight of February “ shall be substituted; .(b) For the expression” first fortnight of April, July and October respectively“, the expression” first fortnight of May, August, and November respectively “ shall be substituted; and .(2) Forclause (v), the following clause shall be substituted namely: ”(v) The auctioneer shall send a copy of the printed catalogue by registered post with acknowledgment due to the pawner to his last known address at least forty five days before the date fixed for the sale. If the notice so sent is returned undelivered for some reason or the other, the auctioneer shall, within seven days from the date of receipt of the undelivered notice, sent to the Village Administrative Officer, as the case may be, having jurisdiction over the last known address of the pawner, two copies of the printed catalogue with a requisition in writing that a copy of the catalogue should be served on the pawner by affixture on a conspicuous place of the house or premises in which the pawner is known to reside or has last resided or, carried on business or personally worked for gain. The Village Administrative Officer or the Village Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of the two copies of the printed catalogue, shall have one copy served by affixture and also have proclamation made at the place of the contents of the catalogue relating to the pawner by beat of drum, within seven days from the date of receipt of the requisition of the auctioneer. The Village Administrative Officer or the Village Officer, as the case may be, shall furnish to the auctioneer in a certificate of such affixture and proclamation specifying the date, time and place of such affixture and proclamation, within five days from the date of such affixture and proclamation. The auctioneer shall not take further action to auction the pledges of the pawner till be acknowledgement of the pawner for having received the printed catalogue or the certificate of affixture and proclamation referred to above is received by him.“ 14. It is the case of the petitioner that when such an attempt is made for affixture or proclamation many practical difficulties arise causing great confusions besides making it a costly affair and at times the cost of affixture and proclamation even exceed the value of the pledged articles wherein the articles of small value are concerned and hence the mode of service of affixture and proclamation is not practicable and imposition of such restrictions is nothing but offending the fundamental right of the pawn broker in carrying on his trade or occupation and since such cumbersome and offending procedure has been re-introduced by the impugned amendment of the rule, the same becomes liable to be declared as illegal, unconstitutional, ultra vires, void and unenforceable in so far as it relates to the petitioner, who is a licensed pawn broker. 15. On the contrary, it is argued on the part of the respondents to the effect that by introduction of the amendment in the rule through the Government Order it is nothing but clarification provided for the relief regarding the conveyance since the object of the amendment is to make sure that the pawner is intimated regarding the ensuing auction to his articles by such wide publicities effected by affixture and beating of tom-tom in and around the place of residence or where the pawner last resided. 16. 16. No doubt, the amendment introduced into Rule 12(7)(v) of the Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Rules aim at averting unreasonable auctioning of the articles of the pawners without even an opportunity for the pawners about the ensuing auction and to take such precautionary steps in safeguarding his interest and, hence, in makings such publicities, the pawners are assured knowledge of ensuing auction to be held pertaining to their property whether smaller or higher in value, thus providing a safeguard against the unreasonable pawnbrokers in bringing the articles for auction even without the knowledge of the pawners. In the said process, the amended rule has made that either the Village Administrative Officer or the Village Officer has to ensure that the publicity is effected in the manner provided for and issue the certificate to the auctioneer of such affixture or proclamation specifying the date, time and place of such affixture or proclamation within five days. This procedure has been made mandatory in cases where the notices issued to the pawners are returned undelivered. 17. Though the amendment introduced by the Government Order to Rules 12(7)(v) of the Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Rules would help to ensure notices in most of the cases wherein the notice issued has been returned undelivered, there is also no denying of the fact as alleged on the part of the petitioner that the procedure contemplated is cumbersome and costly. Moreover, such procedure would give way as a breeding ground for corruption by such officers placed incharge of ensuring such publicity and issue the certificate. But on the part of the respondents, there is no other go excepting to adopt this method since it is the best and easy method known to them to ensure the knowledge of the pawner regarding the ensuring auction of his articles at the hands of the auctioneer. But on the part of the respondents, there is no other go excepting to adopt this method since it is the best and easy method known to them to ensure the knowledge of the pawner regarding the ensuring auction of his articles at the hands of the auctioneer. At the same time, just for the reasons as assigned on the part of the petitioner that it is a cumbersome procedure that has to be gone through which not only involves lot of time, money etc., some times, in cases of small value, the cost of such publicity exceeds even the cost the article brought for sale and that the pawn broker is entangled with some practical difficulties, it cannot be said that the amending of the rule to the effect of the said amendment is in any manner illegal or unconstitutional or void or ultra vires much less offending Art.19(1)(g) on the ground of imposing unreasonable restrictions. The restrictions introduced by the impugned amending rule is quite reasonable. But no doubt, the procedure is somewhat cumbersome but not confusing as alleged by the petitioner and as decided by the Division Bench in W.A.No.477 of 1985. The amending rule does not in any way fetter or hinder or infringed any of the fundamental rights of the pawn broker and the question of infringement of Art.19(1)(g) does not arise at all. 18. It is not quite uncommon that in the implementation of such procedures introduced some practical difficulties would be met with as it is complained of here by the petitioner. But it is not for that matter prudent or desirable to declare under pretext that the entire rule is void or violative or offending the fundamental rights in case that of the pawn Brokers such as the petitioner. The safety value or safeguard provided by the amended rule in ensuring notice of the ensuing auction to be held regarding the valuables or articles of the pawners is laudable. 19. However, as it is further rightly held by the Division Bench that the difficulties and the expenses involved in the procedure adopted as per the amended rule for the petitioner/pawn broker shall also be looked into by the Government by initiating such measures thereby cutting short and simplifying the procedure wherever it is necessary thus minimising the difficulties and the expenses of the pawn brokers like the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner may approach the first respondent setting out his grievances in a memorandum and presenting the same to the first respondent within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the Government shall endeavour in all possible ways and means to reduce the cumbersome procedure and practical hardship that are undergone by the pawn brokers such as the petitioner by passing such orders or introducing such amendments within three months from the date of such representation made on the part of the petitioner. 20. Subject to the above observations made in para 19 above, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.22670 of 1990 is also dismissed.