RAMESHWAR DAYAL UNION OF INDIA AND 0M DUTT SHARMA AND B D PATHAK Vs. STALE OF PUNJAB:STALE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(SC)-1960-12-41
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on December 05,1960

RAMESHWAR DAYAL,UNION OF INDIA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MUBARAK MAZDOOR VS. K K BANERJI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SUBHASH CHANDRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-3-179] [REFERRED TO]
P JEEVAN VS. CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT OF A P HYD [LAWS(APH)-1996-11-113] [REFERRED TO]
ANNAPURNASRI VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2008-6-105] [REFERRED TO]
SASHI BHUSAN RAY VS. PRAMATHA NATH BANDOPADHYAY [LAWS(CAL)-1966-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
RADHA CHARAN PATNAIK VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1969-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
Ramakanta Samanta VS. State Bar Council [LAWS(ORI)-1974-1-29] [REFERRED TO]
MALLARADDI H ITAGI VS. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-2002-3-59] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHAKAR GOVINDRAO DESHPANDE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1985-4-28] [REFERRED TO]
SHASHL BHUSHAN PD SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1996-8-59] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHAT TRIVEDI VS. FATNA HIGH COURT [LAWS(PAT)-2005-5-41] [REFERRED TO]
TUL PAR MACHINE & TOOL COMPANY VS. JOGINDER PAL [LAWS(P&H)-1983-4-38] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV KANT VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2009-8-44] [REFERRED TO]
BHAWANI SINGH BHATI VS. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT & ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-3-94] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KUMAR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-3-190] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA MOHAN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1966-8-15] [DISTINGUISHED]
SATYA NARATN SINGH NARESHCHANDRADUBEY RAVINDRA NATH VERMA VS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD:HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD:HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD [LAWS(SC)-1984-11-10] [EXPLAINED AND FOLLOWED]
GANGA RAM MOOLCHANDANI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-2001-7-50] [REFERRED]
CHANDRA MOHAN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1967-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
K APPADURAI VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2010-8-161] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN KUMAR VASHISTHA VS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-2-79] [REFERRED TO]
TIRUMAL DEVI EADA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2012-7-80] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK AGGARWAL VS. KESHAV KAUSHIK [LAWS(SC)-2013-1-47] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA SINGH VS. THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-9-24] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHANDR AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-7-283] [REFERRED]
SHARAD CHANDRA KUMAR VS. THE UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-2016-4-115] [REFERRED TO]
CALCUTTA VS. SHANKAR KUMAR DAS AND ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2009-4-79] [REFERRED]
DHEERAJ MOR VS. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2018-1-81] [REFERRED TO]
DHEERAJ MOR VS. HIGH COURT OF DELHI [LAWS(SC)-2020-2-66] [REFERRED TO]
REJANISH K.V. VS. K.DEEPA [LAWS(KER)-2020-10-116] [REFERRED TO]
FAISAL VS. VIKAS CHACKO [LAWS(KER)-2019-7-213] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR VERMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2021-4-16] [REFERRED TO]
NIRAJ JAYKUMAR SHARMA VS. HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-4-57] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S. K. Das, J. - (1.)This is an appeal by special leave from an order of the High Court of Punjab dated September 21, 1959, by which it summarily dismissed a petition made by the present appellant under Art. 226 of the Constitution for certain reliefs in respect of five persons, two of whom are now working as Additional Judges of the Punjab High Court, the third as Officiating Judge of the same Court, the fourth as District and Sessions Judge, Delhi, and the fifth as Registrar, Punjab High Court, Chandigarh. Shorn of details which are not material, the case of the appellant was and is that the aforesaid five persons, now respondents 2 to 6 before us, were not qualified to be appointed as District Judges under Art. 233 of the Constitution at the time when they were so appointed by the State Government, now respondent 1 before us, and, therefore, their appointment as such was constitutionally invalid; and the appellant claimed by way of his main relief that a writ in the nature of a writ of quo warranto should issue "ousting them from their office and restraining them from exercising the powers, duties and functions of the posts they are holding and from claiming any rights, privileges or emoluments attached to their office." Certain other subsidiary or ancillary reliefs were also claimed details whereof need not now be stated. We have stated that the petition was summarily dismissed by the High Court. An application for a certificate of fitness having failed in the High Court, the appellant asked for and obtained special leave from this Court on August 19, 1960.
(2.)The appeal has been contested by the State of Punjab, respondent 1, and the other respondents of whom Shamsher Bahadur, Harbans Singh and Gurdev Singh are Justices of the Punjab High Court, Hans Raj Khanna is District and Sessions Judge, Delhi, and P. R. Sawhney is registrar of the High Court. These respondents have filed separate affidavits in reply, and some of them have been separately represented and heard. The Advocate-General of Punjab has appeared and contested the appeal on behalf of respondent 1. The Union of India was originally a party-respondent to the petition inasmuch as the appellant had initially impugned the appointment of two of the respondents as High Court Judges; this relief was, however, given up during the pendency of the special leave petition and on application made by the appellant, the name of the Union of India was struck off by an order dated March 18, 1960, leaving the matter in dispute limited to the question of the validity of t he initial appointment of respondents 2 to 6 as District Judges only. Later, the Union of India made an application to intervene in the appeal and in view of the circumstance that a question of the interpretation of Art. 233 of Constitution arises in the appeal, we have allowed the application and heard the learned Additional Solicitor-General, even though the Union of India did not appear at an earlier stage to contest the application which the appellant had made, to expunge it from the category of respondents.
(3.)The other persons B. D. Pathak and Om Dutt Sharma had also filed a writ petition in the Punjab High Court challenging the legality of the appointment of P. R. Sawhney who, it appears, had acquitted certain persons in three criminal appeals decided by him on January 22, 1959, as Additional District and Sessions Judge, Delhi, from the decision of a magistrate of Delhi in a case in which B. D. Pathak and Om Dutt Sharma said that they had been assaulted by the persons accused in the case. They filed three revision petitions in respect of the orders passed, which are pending in the High Court. In view of these circumstances they have also been allowed to intervene in the present appeal in so far as it relates to the appointment of P. R. Sawhney, and we have heard learned counsel on their behalf.
;


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