Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ram Deo and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others</B>

Ram Deo and Another vs State of U.P. and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Nov 25, 1998
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/472696

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
C.M.W.P. No. 39071 of 1998
Subject
Constitution

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Constitution - power to challenge Ordinance - Articles 14 and 123 of Constitution of India - necessity to promulgate ordinance - Court not authorised to decide - if Ordinance violates any provision of Constitution then - it can be challenged - otherwise not. - - We uphold the validity of the said Ordinance, as wel...

Key legal issue
Constitution
Acts & sections
Constitution of India - Sections 14 and 123

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Deo and Another

Advocate Ram Niwas Singh and ;V.K. Chnadel, Advs.

Respondent

State of U.P. and Others

Advocate S.C.

Legal References

Acts
Constitution of India - Sections 14 and 123
Reported In
1999(2)AWC1325

Excerpt

constitution - power to challenge ordinance - articles 14 and 123 of constitution of india - necessity to promulgate ordinance - court not authorised to decide - if ordinance violates any provision of constitution then - it can be challenged - otherwise not. - - we uphold the validity of the said ordinance, as well as the validity of the act, which replaced the ordinance.m. katju and s. l. saraf, jj.1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. the petitioners have challenged the validity of ordinance no. 4 of 1998, a copy of which is annexed as annexure-1 to this writ petition. we have perused the said ordinance and find no unconstitutionality in the same. it is alleged that there was no necessity to promulgate the said ordinance. it is not for this court to decide the necessity of the ordinance. an ordinance can be challenged only if it ''as passed in violation of some provision of constitution. we do not find that any provision of the constitution which has been violated by the said ordinance. it is furtheralleged that the said ordinance is illegal, without jurisdiction and discriminatory. we do not find it so. in our opinion there is no violation of article 123. thus, there is no force in this writ petition and the same stands dismissed. we uphold the validity of the said ordinance, as well as the validity of the act, which replaced the ordinance.

Full Judgment

M. Katju and S. L. Saraf, JJ.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners have challenged the validity of Ordinance No. 4 of 1998, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-1 to this writ petition. We have perused the said Ordinance and find no unconstitutionality in the same. It is alleged that there was no necessity to promulgate the said Ordinance. It is not for this Court to decide the necessity of the Ordinance. An Ordinance can be challenged only if it ''as passed in violation of some provision of Constitution. We do not find that any provision of the Constitution which has been violated by the said Ordinance. It is furtheralleged that the said Ordinance Is Illegal, without jurisdiction and discriminatory. We do not find it so. In our opinion there is no violation of Article 123. Thus, there is no force in this writ petition and the same stands dismissed. We uphold the validity of the said Ordinance, as well as the validity of the Act, which replaced the Ordinance.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial