M. Radhakrishna Vs. State of Karnataka

.....petitioners and other citizens under our constitution. regulatory powers cannot be read as prohibitory. the police act and the order passed under it is law made by the legislature and any reasonable restriction by such laws must be sustained by this court and they are so sustained. ; (c) precedent - ingredients - judgment decided on facts after hearing contesting parties on issues raised - issue of notice or rule nisi not precedent. ; a simple act of issuing notice or rule nisi does not amount to creating a precedent. to be a judicial precedent understood as such, it should be a judgment of the court decided on the facts of a case giving cogent reasons, after hearing arguments of the parties contesting and raising issues before it. when that is absent, it cannot be a precedent and the mere fact that another judge of this court, had issued notice or admitted the petition does not amount to a binding precedent and the counsel should be careful when authorities are cited without realising what they are doing or the purpose of such citation. ; (d) words & phrases - amusement - section 2: [p.d. dinakaran,c.j. & v.g. sabhahit,j] writ jurisdiction - petitioner challenging demand of amount towards damage caused to government on account of illegal mining by him held, it is therefore clear that the petitioner had committed fraud by colluding with the then director of mines and geology, tahsildar, c.n. halli and deputy commissioner, tumkur district, in getting the impugned lease granted for mining operation over an extent of 96 acres of forest land without obtaining the prior approval contemplated under initiated action for assessing the damage/loss caused by the petitioner by the said illegal mining. therefore, the defence of the petitioner that he had undertaken the mining operation on the basis of the recommendation made by the authorities, cannot be sustained. w.p. dismissed......be known to the licensing authority in order to maintain public order if and when it becomes necessary and also to enforce the law, that is, the police act. viewed thus, the insistence by the circle inspector of policeand the sub inspector of police that the petitioners must take out licence under the order impugned cannot be said to be unjustified or arbitrary opposed to fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners and other citizens under our constitution. regulatory powers cannot be read as prohibitory. the police act and the order passed under it is law made by the legislature and any reasonable restriction by such laws must be sustained by this court and they are so sustained. (c) precedent - ingredients - judgment decided on facts after hearing contesting parties on issues raised - issue of notice or rule nisi not precedent. a simple act of issuing notice or rule nisi does not amount to creating a precedent. to be a judicial precedent understood as such, it should be a judgment of the court decided on the facts of a case giving cogent reasons, after hearing arguments of the parties contesting and raising issues before it. when that is absent, it cannot be a precedent and the mere fact that another judge of this court, had issued notice or admitted the petition does not amount to a binding precedent and the counsel should be careful when authorities are cited without realising what they are doing or the purpose of such citation. (d) words & phrases - amusement