PANNALAL LAHOTI Vs. STATE OF HYDERABAD
LAWS(APH)-1954-3-2
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 22,1954

PANNALAL LAHOTI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HYDERABAD Respondents

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 Commissioner.
(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.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.