State of Mysore Vs. Associate Cement Companies Ltd. and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....by art. 19(5). it is implicit in the nature of restrictions that no inflexible standard can be laid down and each case must be decided on its own facts. but the restrictions must not be arbitrary and must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved and shall be in the interest of the general public. state of madras v. v. g. rao, [1952] s.c.r. 597, henry webster v. peter cooper, 14 law ed. 510, and the citizens' savings and loan association and cleaveland, ohio v. topeka city, 22 law ed. 455, referred to. although the redress of a real and genuine grievance of a section of the community may be in public interest, it is impossible to hold that the impugned legislation was either justified or in such public interest. iswari prosad v. n. r. sen, a.i.r. 1952 cal. 273, held in- applicable. marumakkathayam law is a body of customs and usages that have received judicial recognition, and is fundamentally different from hindu law, being a matriarchal system. the family, called tarwad, consists of all the descendants of one common ancestor. it consists of a mother and her male and female children and the children of those female children and so on. only the senior-most.....order1. special leave granted.2. this appeal is preferred by the state of mysore against the judgment of the high court of mysore at banglore in writ petition no. 2781/70 by which a division bench of the high court declared rule 71 of the hyderabad land revenue rules ultra vires following their earlier decision in rajshekar v. state of mysore . number of appeals were preferred against that decision of the high court and they were heard by this court and the judgment is rendered in state of mysore etc. v m.l. nagade and gadag and ors. this court set aside the judgment of the high court and upheld the validity of rule 71. accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the decision of the high court on this point is set aside.3. mr. g.s. ullah, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there were some other points which could have been agitated either before the high court or before the board of revenue. if there are some points which still survive after the decision of this court, the respondents are at liberty to agitate them before an appropriate forum. accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the high court is set aside with no order as to costs.

Judgment:

ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. This appeal is preferred by the State of Mysore against the judgment of the High Court of Mysore at Banglore in Writ Petition No. 2781/70 by which a Division Bench of the High Court declared Rule 71 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Rules ultra vires following their earlier decision in Rajshekar v. State of Mysore . Number of appeals were preferred against that decision of the High Court and they were heard by this Court and the judgment is rendered in State of Mysore etc. v M.L. Nagade and Gadag and Ors. This Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and upheld the validity of Rule 71. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the decision of the High Court on this point is set aside.

3. Mr. G.S. Ullah, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that there were some other points which could have been agitated either before the High Court or before the Board of Revenue. If there are some points which still survive after the decision of this Court, the respondents are at liberty to agitate them before an appropriate forum. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside with no order as to costs.