Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1987P& H81
D.S. Tewatia, J.1. The petitioner, Dr. Sarwan Singh, has impugned in the present writ petition the action of respondent 4 the District Drugs Inspector, Hoshiarpur, who had prohibited him from keeping in his possession ion any allopathic drug for administration to the patients and who had further directed the chemists not to issue allopathic medicines to such patients as had been prescribed or were to be prescribed such medicines by the petitioner.2. The case set up in the petition by thc petitioner is that he is a Registered Medical Practitioner and had been so registered with the Board of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicines, Punjab, respondent 3, vide registration certificate annexure S. l, that by notification dt. 2-10-1967, annexure P. 2, issued under sub-clause (iii) of clause (ee) of R. 2 of the drugs anal Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (for short to bc referred as 'the Drug Rules') made under the; provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, hereinafter referred to as the 'Drug A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1972P& H72
P.C. Pandit, J. 1. This order will dispose of three connected Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 299, 300 and 485 of 1970. It is conceded by the counsel for the parties that the decision in Letters Patent Appeal No. 299 of 1970 will govern the other appeals as well.2. Jaisi Ram was the owner of the land in dispute. He filed four writ petitions (Nos. 2361 to 2364 of 1963) under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution against his tenants on four different parcels of land. His prayer was that the orders passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, conferring proprietary rights on the tenants under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, hereinafter called the Act, in each case be quashed. All these petitions came up for hearing before C. G. Suri, J. and since the questions of law and fact involved in them were similar and the Revenue Authorities had also taken up those cases together, the learned Judge disposed of the writ petitions by one judgment. All those petitions were dismissed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1963P& H255
Tek Chand, J.1. These are four Letters Patent appeals Nos. 177, 175, 167 and 178 of 1961, which may be conveniently disposed of by one judgment as they involve a point common to all cases which has been referred for disposal by the Full Bench. The question mainly concerns the scope, legality and constitutionality of Section 36 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act).2. Four writ petitions had been filed in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing the order of Director of Consolidation of Holdings. Facts are different in each case, but the differences are immaterial and all the writ petitions pivot upon the point relating to the vires of Section 36 and the violation of rule of natural justice.3. The facts as alleged in the writ petition, which has given rise to L. P. A. 177 of 1961, are that the consolidation operations started ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1998)IILLJ1217P& H; (1998)119PLR1
H.S. Brar, J.1. The petitioners in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Cenioran quashing the impugned orders Annexures P-1, P-2 and P18 annexed with this writ petition whereby their demand for reference of the matter to the Labour Court has been rejected and the appropriate Government has refused to reconsider the matter. They have further sought an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent State of Haryana to refer the dispute regarding dismissal of their service to the Labour Court for adjudication in accordance with law or any other such writ, order or direction as may be deemed fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case.2. Brief facts as stated in the petition are that petitioner No. 1, Radhey Shyam, was appointed on December 11, 1966 and was working as PVC operator while petitioner No. 2, Jaswant Singh was w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1986P& H99
ORDER1. The point involved in this petition on first impressions seems to be covered by judicial authority and yet turns to be intricatingly embroiled requiring analytical examinations. 2. The point in Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 2074 and 1096 of 1977 which can conveniently be disposed of by a single judgment. Facts, however, need be taken note of in Civil Writ Petition No. 2074 of 1977. At this juncture, it may be focussed that Civil Writ Petition No. 2096 of 1977 has been preferred by Machhi Singh, the landowner, whose land is involved in the case. 3. In Civil Writ Petition No. 2074 of 1977. Smt. Kartar Kaur, the petitioners. is the daughter as also a transferee from Machhi Singh, who is a displaced person from west Pakistan. Machhi Singh was allotted 52 standard acres and 13 units of agricultural land in village Nazadalla Kalan,. Tehsil and District Sirsa, somewhere in the year 1949. In August 1958 (not before 31st July, 1958), he transferred 1/3rd share of his total holding in favor ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1977P& H268
O. Chinnappa Reddy, C.J.1. The appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent and the Civil Writ Petition may be disposed of by a common judgment. We proceed to do so.2. In 1966, the Government of Punjab announced its 'New Policy' in regard to Industrial Development and issued a brochure containing the details of the 'New Policy'. It was stated in the brochure that though Punjab had made considerable progress in 'Small Scale Industry', the State was lagging behind in 'Large Scale Industry.' As it was felt that 'Large Scale Industries' were necessary for the survival of 'Small Scale Industries', the Government announced that 'a package of incentives' would be given to those setting up selected industries at any of the three 'focal points' of Dhandari Kalan, Rajpura and Mohali. The concessions and incentives offered, according to the brochure, were:(1) Land to be acquired at focal points and price to be paid in easy instalments, interest being calculated at 4 per cent; the facility to be e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [2006]143STC670(P& H)
ORDERG.S. Singhvi, J.1. This is a petition for quashing of the order (annexure P6) dated August 10, 1999 and annexure P7 dated May 25, 2000 passed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Ambala (respondent No. 3), and Sales Tax Tribunal-II, Haryana (for short, 'the Tribunal'), respectively, declining the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of exemption from payment of tax, which constitutes a condition precedent to the entertaining of an appeal filed under Section 39(1) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (for short, 'the 1973 Act').2. The petitioner is registered as a dealer under the 1973 Act. It filed four quarterly returns for the assessment year 1994-95. The Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Yamuna Nagar, (respondent No. 4) did not accept the return and issued notice in form ST-25 under Section 28 of the 1973 Act for finalisation of the assessment. Shri Rakesh Mehta, Advocate, and Shri Harpal Singh, Office Superintendent, appeared on be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1970P& H491; 1970CriLJ1205
Sandhawalia, J. 1. The validity of the dissolution of the Sikh Gurdwaras Tribunal vide Punjab Government notification No. 646 dated the 26th October, 1966. issued in the name of the President of India stands challenged in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the importance of the issue involved, the matter is placed before us in pursuance to the referring order of my Lords D.K. Mahajan and P.C. Pandit, JJ. dated the 29Jth May, 1969. 2. The facts which deserve notice in order to appreciate the primarily legal contentions raised are in a relatively narrow compass. Gurdit Singh Aulakh (since deceased and hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) was appointed a member of the Sikh Gurdwaras Tribunal in 1962. By an order dated the 10th of September. 1965, he was removed from its membership by a notification issued under Section 12 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and one Shri S.S. Kalha was appointed to the vacancy so c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1993)104PLR603
K.P. Bhandari, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Regular First Appeal Nos. 2367 and 2368 of 1991 as they arise out of the common judgment of the Addl. District Judge, Ferozepur, for the purposes of these judgments, facts have been taken from Regular First Appeal No. 2368 of 1991.2. The Punjab Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the 'Act') on August 6, 1973, for acquisition of land measuring 35 acres, 1 kanal and 10 Marlas in village Panchanwali, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur. The acquired land included land measuring 19 Kanals 14 Marlas belonging to the appellant. The provisions of Section 17 of the Act were invoked and enquiry under Section 5A was dispensed with. Thereafter, notification under Section 6 of the Act who issued on August 6 1973. The State immediately took possession of the land in dispute. Sudhir Kumar and other landowners challenged the notification by means of Civil Writ Petition No. 3465 of 1973 The main challe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1982P& H480
S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J. 1. ther sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 is an independent self-contained provision or is merely a proviso to the preceding sub-section (1) despite the non obstante clause with which it begins has come to be the spinal issue in this reference to a Bench of seven Judges.2. It is because of a veiled doubt about the correctness of the settled law within this Court by a Bench of five Judges in Karta Ram v. Om Parakash, AIR 1971 Punj & Har 423 (FB) and a co-equal Bench in Prithi Pal Singh v. Milkha Singh, AIR 1976 Punj & Har 157 (FB), that this reference seems to have been necessitated. Because of this and indeed in view of an implied challenge to the very doctrine of precedent which it involves, the matter calls for an exhaustive and in-depth examination.3. For issues so pristinely legal, the facts would invariably pale into insignificance. Yet law even in abstract must retain its connection with the terra firma of the factual matrix....
Tag this Judgment!