Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC520; [1956]1SCR357
Sinha, J.1. This petition under article 32 of the Constitution on behalf of as many as 726 persons, ex-patwaris under the first respondent, the State of Uttar Pradesh, seeks the aid of this Court in enforcing the provisions of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, on the allegation mainly that they had been denied equality before the law and equal opportunity for employment under the State. The Revenue Minister of Uttar Pradesh is the second respondent, and the Land Reforms Commissioner of that State is the third respondent. The Collectors of Meerut, Muzaffarnagar, Aligarh, Badaun and Moradabad are respondents 4 to 8.2. It appears that patwaris numbering about 28,000 in the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh had organised themselves in 1940 into 'The U. P. Patwari's Association' with a view to improving their prospects and emoluments. They were part-time servants of the Government in the Revenue Department. After the Zamindari Abolition Act was brought not operation in that State, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC896; [1958]1SCR308
Das, C.J.1. In these two petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India the petitioners call in question the validity of the Punjab Special Powers (Press) Act, 1956 (being Act No. 38 of 1956), hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Act', and pray for an appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to withdraw the Notifications issued by them on the two petitioners as the editors, printers and publishers of two newspapers, Pratap Vir Arjun. 2. The Daily Pratap was started about 38 years back in Lahore, the capital of the united Punjab. It is a daily newspaper printed in the Urdu language and script. Since the partition of the country the Daily Pratap is being published simultaneously from Jullundur and from New Delhi. Vir Arjun is a Hindi daily newspaper also published simultaneously from Jullundur and from New Delhi. Virendra, the petitioner, in Petition No. 95 of 1957 is the editor, printer and publisher of the two papers published from Julludur and K. Narendra is the e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC255; (1958)IMLJ109(SC); (1958)36MysLJ(SC)232; [1958]1SCR895
Venkatarama Aiyar, J. 1. The substantial question of law, which arises for decision in this appeal, is whether the right of a religious denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion guaranteed under Art. 26(b), is subject to, and can be controlled by, a law protected by Art. 25(2)(b), throwing open a Hindu public temple to all classes and sections of Hindus. 2. In the District of South Kanara which formed until recently of the State of Madras and is now comprised in the State of Mysore, there is a group of three villages, Mannampady, Bappanad and Karnad collectively known as Moolky Petah; and in the village of Mannampady, there is an ancient temple dedicated to Sri Venkataramana, renowned for its sanctity. It is this institution and its trustees, who are the appellants before us. The trustees are all of them members of a sect known as Gowda Saraswath Brahmins. It is said that the home of this community in the distant past was Kashmir, that the members thereof migrated t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC309; 1958CriLJ569
Vivian Bose, J.1. This is an application under Section 527 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the transfer of a criminal case from Jashpurnagar in the State of Madhya Pradesh to some other State, preferably New Delhi or Orissa, and for a request that the case be tried by a 'Superior Court' such as a District Magistrate or a Sessions Judge.2. The case is a prosecution for defamation under Sections 501 and 502 of the Indian PenalCode read with Section 34.3. The complainant is a member of the royal family of Jashpur. He resides at Jashpurnagar. 4. There are now seven accused, all of whom are Roman Catholics except one who is a Jacobite Christian. Originally, there were nine but one died and one other does not appear to have joined in the application, so that leaves seven who have. 5. The accused are scattered over India and reside at Nagpur (Bombay State), Patna (Bihar), Allahabad (Uttar Pradesh) and Raigarh (Madhya Pradesh). Two of them are priests and one a bishop. The rest are laymen. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC468; (1958)IMLJ179(SC); [1958]1SCR1422; [1958]9STC298(SC)
Venkatarama Aiyar, J.1. The petitioners are dealers carrying on business in the City of Madras inthe sale and purchase of yarn, and they have filed the present applicationsunder Art. 32 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of prohibition orother appropriate writ restraining the State of Andhra from taking proceedingsfor imposing tax on certain sales effected by them in favour of merchants whoare residing or carrying on business in what is now the State of AndhraPradesh, on the ground, inter alia, that the said sales were made in the courseof inter-State trade, and that no tax could be levied on them by reason of theprohibition contained in Art. 286(2) of the Constitution. 2. The course of dealings between the parties resulting in the above saleshas been set out in para. 5 in Petition No. 220 of 1955. It is therein statedthat the dealers in Andhra would place orders for the purchase of yarn with thepetitioners in Madras, that the contracts would be concluded at Madras, that thego...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1958SC1012; (1958)IILLJ492SC
P.B. Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal by special leave arises out of an industrial dispute between the appellant, M/s. D. Macropollo and Co. (Private) Ltd., and Respondent No. 1, its workmen as represented by D. Macropollo and Co. (Private)Ltd., Employees' Union. On 31-5-1957, this dispute was referred to the First Labour Court by the Government of West Bengal under Sub-section 7 and 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (No. XIV of 1947). The two questions which were referred to the Labour Court were:(1) Is the termination of services of the fourteen workmen (whose names were given in the reference) justified? and(2) what relief were the discharged employees entitled to?Before the Labour Court, the Employees' Union urged that the discharge of the fourteen employees amounted to an act of victimisation and unfair labour practice. On the other hand, the appellant urged that the discharged employees were not workmen within the meaning of the Act and so the reference made by the Government of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC223; [1959]Supp1SCR160
Das, C.J.1. By each of these 32 petitions under Article 32 of our Constitution, which have been heard together, the respective petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (Himachal 15 of 1954) which is said to have been passed by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Himachal Pradesh created by the Himachal Pradesh and Bilaspur (New State) Act (32 of 1954). 2. On November 23, 1954, the President of India gave his assent to the Bill which on being so assented to became the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, (Himachal 15 of 1954) (hereinafter called the Abolition Act). On January 26, 1955, this Abolition Act was brought into force by a notification issued under section 1(3) thereof. It will be convenient at this stage of refer to some of the relevant sections of the Abolition Act. Section 11 confers a new right on the tenants to acquire the interests of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC544; 1959CriLJ660; 1959Supp(1)SCC904; [1959]Supp1SCR904
Hidayatullah, J. 1. This appeal was preferred by the State of Ajmer, but after the reorganisation of States, the State of Rajasthan stands substituted for the former State. It was filed against the decision of the Judicial Commissioner of Ajmer, who certified the case a fit for appeal to this Court under Article 132 of the Constitution. 2. The Ajmer Legislative Assembly enacted the Ajmer (Sound Amplifiers Control) Act, 1952 (Ajmer 3 of 1953), (hereinafter called the Act) which received the assent of the President on March 9, 1953. This Act was successfully impugned by the respondents before the learned Judicial Commissioner, who held that it was in excess of the powers conferred on the State Legislature under section 21 of the Government of Part C States Act, 1951 (49 of 1951) and, therefore, ultra vires the State Legislature. 3. The respondents (who were absent at the hearing) were prosecuted under section 3 of the Act for breach of the first two conditions of the permit granted to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC994
Hidayatullah, J.1. The petitioner Hamid Raza has moved this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, Previous to this the petitioner had obtained a certificate of fitness from the Judicial Commissioner of Vindhya Pradesh on 4-1-1956 to appeal against the order dated 7-5-1955 passed on writ application No. 25 of 1955. Though the petitioner deposited the amount of security, as well as the printing charges, he took recourse to Article 32, as a more expeditious and adequate remedy.2. The petitioner carries on business as a manufacturer of bidis under the name and style of Hamid Raza Manufacturing Company Rewa. In the year 1953, the Vindhya Pradesh Tendu Leaves Act, 1953, was enacted and it came into force on May 19, 1954. In pursuance of a provision therefore the petitioner applied to the appropriate authority on January 19, 1955, for a licence. His application is Annexure 'A'. On February 4, 1955, the Divisional Forest Officer, Rewa, declined to grant him a licence stating as the reaso...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1960SC51; (1960)62BOMLR58; [1960]1SCR605
S.K. Das, J. 1. This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Bombay under Art. 132(1) of the Constitution, and the question involved in the appeal is the true scope and effect of Art. 3 of the Constitution, particularly of the proviso thereto as it stands after the Constitution (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1955. 2. On December 22, 1953, the Prime Minister of India made a statement in Parliament to the effect that a Commission would be appointed to examine 'objectively and dispassionately' the question of the re-organisation of the States of the Indian Union 'so that the welfare of the people of each constituent units as well as the nation as a whole is promoted'. This was followed by the appointment of a Commission under a resolution of the Union Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs, dated December 29, 1953. The Commission submitted its report in due course and on April 18, 1956; a Bill was introduced in the House of the People (Lok Sabha) entitled The States Reorgan...
Tag this Judgment!