Rajkumar Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others

Rajkumar Gupta and Others vs Union of India and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Aug 05, 1999

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/484977

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/484977
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: D.S. Sinha and ;Onkareshwar Bhatt, JJ.
Decided On: Aug 05, 1999
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 34346 of 1991
Subject: Constitution

Case Summary

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

Constitution - power exercised by Government - Section 38 and Rule 8(d) of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959 - Rule 8(d) made by Central Government as per power conferred under Section 38 - validity of Rule 8(d) was under challenge - previously Division Bench of this Court upheld th...

Key legal issue: Constitution
Acts & sections: Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959 - Rule 8; Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958 - Sections 38; Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajkumar Gupta and Others

Advocate Saghir Ahmad, Adv.

Respondent

Union of India and Others

Advocate Shambhu Nath Sarivastava, S.C.

Legal References

Acts: Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959 - Rule 8; Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958 - Sections 38; Constitution of India - Article 226
Cases Referred: Virendra Kumar Chadda v. Union of India and
Reported In: 1999(4)AWC2958; (1999)3UPLBEC1917

Excerpt

constitution - power exercised by government - section 38 and rule 8(d) of ancient monuments and archaeological sites and remains rules, 1959 - rule 8(d) made by central government as per power conferred under section 38 - validity of rule 8(d) was under challenge - previously division bench of this court upheld the validity of rule in dispute - court relying on same held that rule 8(d) is valid. - .....petition with certain directions. thus, the controversy raised in the instant petition is no longer res integra.4. the court is not persuaded to take a view contrary to the view taken by the division bench of this court in the case of virendra kumar chadda (supra).5. in the result, the petition fails, and is dismissed subject to the directions contained in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment of the division bench dated september 10, 1992 in the case of virendra kumar chaddha (supra). the interim order dated november 26, 1991 is vacated. there is no order as to costs.6. before parting with the case, the court considers it necessary to mention that prayer for adjournment of the hearing of the case was made by shri saghir ahmad. learned counsel of the petitioners, on theground of illness of shri s. c. budhwar. learned senior advocate, who, according to shri saghir ahmad, had instruction to argue the case on behalf of the petitioners. the court declined to entertain the prayer in view of the fact that question raised in the petition is fully covered by the division bench's decision of this court in the case of virendra chadda (supra), and adjournment of the hearing of the case would have served no useful purpose.

Full Judgment

D. S. Sinha, J.

1. Heard Shri Saghlr Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri Shambhu Nath Srivastava, learned senior standing counsel of the Central Government representing the respondents, at length and in detail.

2. The uires of Rule 8 (d) of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules. 1959. (hereinafter called the 'Rules') made by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred upon it under Section 38 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. It is not disputed that the vires of Rule 8 (d), aforesaid, was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Virendra Kumar Chadda v. Union of India and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10714 of 1991, and the writ petitions connected therewith. The Division Bench vide its Judgment and order dated September 10, 1992, upheld the vires of Rule 8 (d) of the Rules and dismissed the petition with certain directions. Thus, the controversy raised in the instant petition is no longer res Integra.

4. The Court is not persuaded to take a view contrary to the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court In the case of Virendra Kumar Chadda (supra).

5. In the result, the petition fails, and is dismissed subject to the directions contained in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment of the Division Bench dated September 10, 1992 in the case of Virendra Kumar Chaddha (supra). The interim order dated November 26, 1991 is vacated. There is no order as to costs.

6. Before parting with the case, the Court considers it necessary to mention that prayer for adjournment of the hearing of the case was made by Shri Saghir Ahmad. learned counsel of the petitioners, on theground of illness of Shri S. C. Budhwar. learned senior Advocate, who, according to Shri Saghir Ahmad, had instruction to argue the case on behalf of the petitioners. The Court declined to entertain the prayer In view of the fact that question raised in the petition is fully covered by the Division Bench's decision of this Court in the case of Virendra Chadda (supra), and adjournment of the hearing of the case would have served no useful purpose.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1999 Same Parties Rajkumar Gupta and Others vs Union of India and Others Same Subject Constitution Same Judge D.S. Sinha and ;Onkareshwar Bhatt, JJ. Acts & Sections Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules,...

Constitution