PANNALAL LAHOTI Vs. STATE OF HYDERABAD
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
STATE OF HYDERABAD
Click here to view full judgement.
Misra, C.J. -
(1.) The following four questions have been referred by a Full Bench of three judges to a Fuller
Bench of five judges:
(1) Whether the Hyderabad Defence Regulation, having regard to its preamble, language,
emergency and the constitutional set up at the State then existing was operative only during the
period of emergency for which it was promulgated and should be deemed to have lapsed
afterwards without any express repealment;
(2) whether the directions contained in the Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order of 1355-F.
about the publication of a press-note explaining its provisions read with R. 110 at the Defence of
Hyderabad Rules are man-datory;
(3) whether the directions by the Textile Commissioner about the markings on the bales having
regard to the definition of "Cloth". "Yarn" and other provisions of the Order of 1352-P., under
which it was framed as well as the later Order are not within the scope of his delegated authority
and therefore ultra vires; and
(4) whether Sections 435 and 439 of the Indian Criminal Procedure Code authorise interference
by this Court in a pending criminal case on grounds of illegality of procedure or harassment of
the accused by such unjustified illegal procedure.
These questions arise in a criminal case pending in the Court of the District Magistrate,
Gulbarga against the petitioner Pannalal Lahoti for violation of Sub-clauses (d), (e) and (f) of
Clause 7(1), Cotton Cloth and Yam Control Order, 1355-F. promulgated under R. 72(2) read
with R, 72(4) of the Defence of Hyderabad Rules.
(2.) The petitioner was the managing agent of Messrs. M. S. K. Mills, Gulbarga and in that
capacity he is alleged to have ordered his staff in May and June 1949 to alter the markings on the
gunny coverings of bales of cloths from "May 1949 Tex Mark" to "June 1949 Tex Mark" and to
have kept the bales with the changed markings in the Mills without informing the Textile
(3.) Section 2, Defence of Hyderabad Regulation authorised the President in Council to make
such rules as appeared to him necessary or expedient for defence of the dominions, public safety,
maintenance of public order or the efficient prosecution of war or for maintaining supplies and
services essential to the life of the community. The Hyderabad Defence Rules followed
immediately and they dealt with a variety of subjects which were arranged in 18 parts.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.