In Re: Dhondo Kashinath Phadke - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91) mah. lj sc 1 is not the law declared by supreme court under article 141 of the constitution of india. said observations/directions are issued in exercise of powers under article 142 of the constitution and also have no application to the cases relating to appointments and are restricted to the cases relating to admissions. the protection, if any, to be granted in the fact and circumstances of case would depend upon exercise of discretion by supreme court under article 142 of the constitution. said powers under article 142 of constitution is not available to the high court. hence no protection can be granted by high court even in cases relating to admissions. 1. this is an application by the petitioner dhondo kashinath phadke by way of appeal against the order of the district magistrate of thana forfeiting the arunodaya press.2. the argument advanced before us is that the magistrate should have limited his order to the forfeiture of such portions of the arunodaya press as were used for the printing of the hindu punch and should not have passed an order of forfeiture of the whole press.3. it is to be observed, however, that section 3 of the newspaper (incitement to offences) act, vii of 1908, provides for the making of a conditional order declaring the printing press used for the purpose of printing or publishing such a newspaper to be forfeited, and clause (c) of section 2 defines printing press to include all engines, machinery, types, lithographic stones, implements, utensils and other plant or materials used for the purpose of printing.4. as the paper was printed at the arunodaya press, the magistrate was right in forfeiting the whole press as defined by the act.5. we, therefore, dismiss the appeal.