Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC495; (1975)1SCC410
N.L. Untwaua, J.1. These five Civil appeals and the two Criminal' appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment as the points involved in them are identical,2. The various respondents in these appeals were being prosecuted by the Delhi Development Authority- hereinafter called the Authority- constituted under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 - hereinafter referred to as Development Act, Under Section 29(2) of the said Act. Large number of such prosecutions were started against various persons owning land and buildings in the different areas of Delhi for the alleged violation of Section 14 of the Development Act. Some of the persons prosecuted challenged the legality of the prosecution by filing Writ Petitions and some by filing Criminal Petitions for the quashing of the conviction or the prosecution. One Writ Petition being Writ Petn. No. 728 of 1970 was disposed of by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court consisting of Hardy and Deshpande, JJ. by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1067; (1975)1SCC264; [1975]2SCR749; 1974(6)LC790(SC)
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. Elections were held in March 1972 to the Himachal Pradesh State Legislative Assembly. The 1st respondent was elected to that Assembly from the Shahpur Constituency in Kangra District, An election petition was filed by the appellant, a voter in that constituency, on the ground, among others, that at the time of filing of nominations the 1st respondent was holding, an office of profit under the Government of Himachal Pradesh and as such was disqualified for election under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution. The petition having been dismissed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh this appeal has been filed against the order of dismissal.2. The only ground which is relevant for the purpose of decision of this appeal and which was urged before this Court, was that as the 1st respondent was holding an office of profit under the State Government he was disqualified under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution to be elected as a member of the State Legislative Assembly....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC1514; (1975)1SCC108; 1975(7)LC70(SC)
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. The respondent was the successful candidate in the election held on March 8, 1972 to the legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh from Mauganj constituency. The appellant is one of the unsuccessful candidate in the election. His petition questioning the respondent's election having been dismissed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh he has filed this appeal The appellant was the candidate set up by the Indian National Congress Party while the respondent contested as an independent candidate. In the election the respondent secured 13,599 votes against 10, 683 obtained by the appellant. It appears that in the earlier general election held in 1967 from the same constituency the respondent had contested as a Congress candidate while the petitioner was an independent candidate. In that election the appellant succeeded in defeating the respondent. 2. In the election petition there were allegations of many corrupt practices of which we are concerned with only one in this ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC575; (1975)1SCC252; [1975]2SCR753
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. In the election to the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly held on March 7, 1972 the 1st respondent was declared elected from Shirdi Constituency. The appellant, a voter from that constituency filed an election petition questioning election of the 1st respondent on two grounds : one was that the successful candidate had committed several corrupt practices, the other that the election, was liable to be set aside because he was disqualified for election as he was holding an office of profit under the State Government as a member of the Wage Board for the Sugar Industry constituted by the Government of Maharashtra under Section 86B of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The only question argued before this Court was the 2nd one.2. February 8, 1972 was the last date for filing nominations and February 11, 1972 the last date for withdrawal of candidature. The 1st respondent resigned as a member of the Wage Board on February 20, 1972 and the letter of resignat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC580; (1975)1CompLJ577(SC); (1975)3SCC398; [1975]2SCR743
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. The appellants Satyendra Nath Dutta and Subhash Mauzumdar were tried by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Lucknow, for offences in connection with the, death of one Nanhey Lal and injuries to his son, Raj Kishore. Satyendra Nath Dutta was charged under Section 302 and Section 307 read with Section 34 while the other appellant was charged under Section 307 and Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants upon which Ram Narain, a brother of the deceased Nanhey Lal, filed a revision application in the High Court of Allahabad under Section 439, CrPC, challenging the order of acquittal. It is said that the State of U.P. wanted to file an appeal against the order of acquittal but it could not do so as the record of the case was missing. The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the order of acquittal and directed that the appellants be redirected by the Sessions Court. This appeal by specia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC223; 1975CriLJ269; (1975)3SCC710; [1975]2SCR732
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. These proceedings for the writ of habeas corpus are directed against an order passed by the District Magistrate, Patna, on April 9, 1974 in the exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 26 of 1971. The District Magistrate directed by the aforesaid order that the petitioner, who is a student leader, be detained with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.2. The 'Grounds' of detention were served on the petitioner on April 13, 1974. They read thus:1. Whereas the said Shri Ram Bahadur Rai, in his capacity as Secretary of All India Vidyarthi Parishad, attended a meeting of the Bihar Rajya Shatra Neta Sammelan held on the 17th and 18th February, 1974, in Patna University campus, in which from amongst other things, it was decided, at his instance, to start a Gujarat type of agitation in Bihar, and whereas in the same meeting it was also decided to resort to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1975)4SCC175; 1975(7)LC56(SC)
K.K. Mathew, J.1. The only point in these appeals is whether the High Court was right in striking down the two G.Os., namely G.O.M S. 923. Home dated 19-4-1969 and G.O.M.S. 434-Home dated 27-2-1970 for the reason that the levy of tax under the G.Os. was not an exercise of the power of taxation but was a measure for eliminating competition of the permit-holders of contract carriages.2. We have already indicated in our judgment in G.K. Krishnan, etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu etc. etc. that if the government has power to impose the tax the motive or the purpose with which that power has been exercised is quiteimmaterial. Section 17 gives power to the State Government to amend Schedule II or III by rules. A draft of any rule has to be laid on the table of the legislative Assembly approves the draft. Neither the draft of the rule approved by the Assembly nor the rule as framed by government contained the purpose of imposing a higher tax on contract carriages. It was only when the rule was pub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC583; (1975)1SCC375; [1975]2SCR715
K.K. Mathew, J.1. In the Civil Appeals, the questions for consideration are whether the enhancement of motor vehicles tax on omnibuses imposed by G.O. No. 2044-Home dated 20-9-1971 by the Government of Tamil Nadu from Rs. 30 per seat per quarter to Rs. 100/- per seat per quarter is Constitutionally valid and whether the distinction made between contract carriages and stage carriages in the matter of levy of vehicle tax offends Article 14 of the Constitution.2. The writ petitions assail the validity of the aforesaid notification on the additional ground, namely, that the tax levied under the notification imposes restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse guaranteed by Article 301 of the Constitution and that, as the notification is not law passed after obtaining the previous sanction of the President of India, the tax is invalid.3. We take up for consideration Writ Petition No. 253 of 1973 and the judgment therein will dispose of the Civil Appeals and the Writ Petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1975)4CTR(SC)24
Mathew, J. - The only point in these appeals is whether the High Court was right in striking down the two G. Os., namely, G.O.M.S. 923 - Home dated 19-4-1969 and G.O.M.S. 434 - Home dated 27-2-1970 for the reason that the levy of tax under the G.Os. was not an exercise of the power of taxation but was a measure for eliminating competition of the permit-holders of contract carriages.2. We have already indicated in our judgment in G.K. Krishnan, etc. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, etc. etc. that if the Government has power to impose the tax, the motive or the purpose with which that power has been exercised is quite immaterial. Section 17 gives power to the State Government to amend Schedule II or III by rules. A draft of any rule has to be laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly and the rule shall not be made unless the Assembly approves the draft. Neither the draft of the rule approved by the Assembly nor the rule as framed by Government contained the purpose of imposing a higher tax o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC594; (1975)1SCC391; 1975(7)LC57(SC)
K.K. Mathew, J.1. In these appeals, the question for consideration is whether the amendment to the Mysore Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by introducing item No. 4A in Part A of the Schedule to the Act by the Mysore Motor Vehicle Taxation (Amendment) Act, 1972, is Constitutionally valid. By the amendment, tax in respect of Motor Vehicles which are covered by contract carriage permits has been raised from Rs. 35/- to Rs. 100/- per seat per quarter. 2. Before the High Court, the respondents challenged the validity of the Amendment Act on the ground that it violated their fundamental right under Article 14 and the right to freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse guaranteed under Article 301 of the Constitution. The ground of challenge under Article 14 was that contract carriages were similarly situated as stage carriages with respect to the purpose of the Act and that enhancement of vehicle tax on contract carriages alone offends that Article. T...
Tag this Judgment!