Goa, Daman and Diu Board of Secondary Education Vs. Kumari Hema Laad and ors. - Court Judgment |
| Constitution |
| Supreme Court of India |
| Aug-16-1984 |
| Civil Appeal Nos. 4152 to 4157 of 1982 |
| D.A. Desai and; V. Balakrishnan Eradi, JJ. |
| AIR1984SC1584; 1984(2)SCALE171; (1984)4SCC58; [1985]1SCR430; 1984(16)LC1108(SC) |
| Goa, Daman and Diu Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board Act |
| Goa, Daman and Diu Board of Secondary Education |
| Kumari Hema Laad and ors. |
| Soli J. Sorabjee,; A.K. Verma and; O.C. Mathur, Advs |
| Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth and Ors.
|
| From the Judgment and Order dated November 2, 1982 of the Bombay High Court Panaji Bench (Goa), in Special Civil Applications Writ Petitions No. 129, 110, 103, 101, 102 and 104 of 1980-- |
.....assets of its industrial undertakings, brought about a situation which had affected and is likely to further affect the production of articles manufactured or produced by it and that immediate action is necessary to prevent such a situation. the government authorised the national textile corporation limited to take over the management, subject to the conditions that the authorised person shall comply with all the directions issued from time to time by the central government and that the authorised person shall hold office for a period of five years. the appellant mills challenged the aforesaid order in a writ petition in the high court. the case was heard by a full bench of five judges to consider the question whether in construing section 18aa of the industries development and regulation act, 1951, compliance with the principle of audi alteram partem is to be implied and whether hearing is to be given to the parties who would be affected by the order to be passed prior to the passing of the order or whether hearing can be given after the order is passed and whether the order passed under the said section is vitiated by not giving of such hearing and whether such vice can be..........air 1981 bom 895 came in for examination by this court in maharashtra state board of secondary and higher secondary education and anr. v. paritosh bhupesh kumarsheth and ors. : [1985]1scr29 . by judgment dated 17th july 1984, this court reversed the view taken by the bombay high court and upheld the validity of the impugned clauses (1) and (3) of regulation 104. the present case is fully covered by the dicta laid down in the said ruling. hence we set aside the judgment of the high court and uphold the validity of clauses (1) and (2) of rule 37 of the rules framed under the goa, daman and diu secondary and higher secondary education board act. these appeals are allowed and the writ petitions filed in the high court will stand dismissed. the appellant will get its costs from the respondents.
Balakrishna Eradi, J.
1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the Judgment of the High Court of Bombay (Panaji Bench) dated 2.11.1982 whereby a Division Bench of the High Court allowed a batch of Writ Petitions filed by some students who had appeared in the XII standard examination conducted by the Goa, Daman and Diu Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and declared the provisions of Clauses (1) and (2) of Rule 37 of the rules framed by the Administrator of Goa, Daman and Diu under Goa, Daman and Diu Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board Act as ultra vires and invalid insofar as they prohibit inspection and/or revaluation of answer books. In reaching the said conclusion on the validity of the impugned rules the High Court followed its earlier Judgment in Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth and Ors. v. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Pune and Anr. AIR 1981 Bom 895-wherein Regulation 104 (3) framed by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education which is an identical provision prohibiting inspection and/or revaluation of answer books was declared illegal and ultra vires. The correctness of the said Judgment AIR 1981 Bom 895 came in for examination by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth and Ors. : [1985]1SCR29 . By Judgment dated 17th July 1984, this Court reversed the view taken by the Bombay High Court and upheld the validity of the impugned Clauses (1) and (3) of Regulation 104. The present case is fully covered by the dicta laid down in the said ruling. Hence we set aside the Judgment of the High Court and uphold the validity of Clauses (1) and (2) of Rule 37 of the rules framed under the Goa, Daman and Diu Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board Act. These appeals are allowed and the writ petitions filed in the High Court will stand dismissed. The appellant will get its costs from the respondents.