NATHUNI LAL GUPTA Vs. STATE
LAWS(CAL)-1963-6-10
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on June 07,1963

NATHUNI LAL GUPTA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

JAMES V. JONES [REFERRED TO]
HINDE V. ALLMOND [REFERRED TO]
EMPEROR V. BENORI LALL SARMA [REFERRED TO]
SAINSBURY V. SAUNDERS [REFERRED TO]
HOME BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION V. BLAISDELL [REFERRED TO]
YOUNGSTOWN SHEET AND TUBE CO. V. CHARLES SAWYER [REFERRED TO]
MAKHAN SINGH TARSIKKA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BOMBAY VS. VIRKUMAR GULABCHAND SHAH [REFERRED TO]
HARISHANKAR BAGLA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
TIKA RAMJI OTHERS VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BHATNAGARS AND COMPANY LIMITED MESSRS BHATNAGARS AND COMPANY LIMITED DILHI BHATNAGARS AND COMPANY LIMITED BHATNAGARS AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED DELHI MESSRS BHATNAGARS AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

G.K.Mitter, J. - (1.)This is an application under Article 228 of the Constitution of India for determination of several constitutional questions raised in paragraph 10 of the petition.
(2.)The petitioners are 158 in number against whom proceedings were started under Rule 41(5) read with Rule 41(1) (a), Rule 35(3) and Rule 36(4) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962. They were all workmen of Shri Luxmi Flour Mills Ltd., 243, Upper Chitpore Road, Calcutta. The complaint against them was that they had squatted outside the main gate and rear entrance of the said Mill in order to prevent anybody from going in or coming out of the said Mill premises and had refused to allow others to lift 27,000 mds. of finished wheat products for dispatch by trucks and rail with the result that there was every chance of the said stock getting rotten. The complaint was taken by a Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta who overruled the preliminary objections raised before him on behalf of the present petitioners.
(3.)In the petition filed in this Court the points formulated for determination are :
(1) "Whether wheat or wheat products are essential commodity as defined in sub-rule (6) of 4 35 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, and if so, whether such a definition is contrary to the provision of Article 369 and item 33, List 3, Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding the fact that there is no notified order by the Central Government to the effect."

(2) "Whether the prejudicial act referred to in Rule 41(1)(a) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, is in violation of Article 14 as there is no reasonable basis for such classification."

(3) "Whether the prejudicial act as referred to in Rule 41(1)(a) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, suffers from the vice of delegated legislation inasmuch as it arms the executive authority or any person to avail to the machinery under the Rules and such action is a usurpation of essential legislative functions."



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