RAMJILAL Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER MOHINDAR GARH
LAWS(SC)-1951-1-6
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on January 12,1951

RAMJILAL Appellant
VERSUS
INCOME TAX OFFICER,MOHINDAR GARH Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

KUNWAR MURLI MANOHAR VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1956-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
OUDH SUGAR MILLS LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1959-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
RAJA RAM KUMAR BHARGAVA VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(ALL)-1962-2-18] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUNANDAN PRASAD MOHAN LAL VS. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(ALL)-1969-11-14] [REFERRED TO]
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER HYDERABAD 2 VS. M M SADI [LAWS(APH)-1959-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
EAST INDIA SANDAL OIL DISTILLERIES LTD VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1961-6-15] [REFERRED TO]
AZAM JAH HIS HIGHNESS PRINCE VS. ETO [LAWS(APH)-1963-11-12] [REFERRED TO]
M MOHAN RAO VS. T SUBBAIAH [LAWS(APH)-1991-12-38] [REFERRED TO]
LIBERTY CINEMA VS. COMMISSIONER CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA [LAWS(CAL)-1958-7-11] [REFERRED TO]
BIBHASH CHANDRA GON VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1962-12-16] [REFERRED TO]
M M ISPAHANI LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL [LAWS(CAL)-1968-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
HUKUMCHAND MILLS VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-1959-1-12] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAH SRI RAVU SWETA CHELAPATHI RAMAKRISHNA RANGA RAO VS. STATE OF MADRAS [LAWS(MAD)-1951-9-42] [REFERRED TO]
BHOPAL SUGAR INDUSTRIES LTD VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1961-1-9] [REFERRED TO]
COFFEE BOARD BANGALORE VS. JOINT COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER MADRAS [LAWS(SC)-1969-10-31] [REFERRED TO]
INSTALMENT SUPPLY LIMITED VS. S T 0 AHMEDABAD I [LAWS(SC)-1974-5-13] [RELIED ON]
RAGHUNANDAN PRASAD MOHAN LAL BAREILLY VS. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(ALL)-1969-3-12] [REFERRED TO]
HIRACHAND VASTARAM VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(CAL)-1963-1-4] [REFERRED TO]
STRAW PRODUCTS LIMITED VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER A WARD [LAWS(MPH)-1966-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL FIBRE DEALERS LTD VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER [LAWS(CAL)-1977-12-14] [REFERRED TO]
PANDURANG KASHINATH MORE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-1957-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
RADHESHYAM MAKHANLAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-1959-8-16] [REFERRED TO]
SAMPAT KUMAR VS. NATHU RAM DHUTA RAM [LAWS(P&H)-1958-2-12] [REFERRED TO]
EVEREST WOOLLEN MILLS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1965-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKER IRON AND STEEL ROLLING MILLS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-1968-7-14] [REFERRED TO]
GWALIOR SUGAR CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT [LAWS(MPH)-1954-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
KUNNATHAT THATHUNNI MOOPIL NAIR VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(SC)-1960-12-25] [REFERRED TO]
TATA IRON AND STEEL CO LIMITED BOMBAY VS. S R SARKAR [LAWS(SC)-1960-8-27] [REFERRED]
BENGAL IMMUNITY COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-1955-9-3] [FOLLOWED]
MOHAMMAD YASIN VS. TOWN AREA COMMITTES JALALABAD [LAWS(SC)-1952-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. RAO MANOHAR SINGHJI [LAWS(SC)-1954-3-1] [REFERRED]
LAXMANAPPA HANUMANTAPPA JAMKHANDI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1954-10-15] [RELIED ON]
ATIABARI TEA CO LIMITED KHAYERBARI TEA CO LIMITED H P BARUA HASIMARA TEA COMPANY LIMITED MOABUND TEA COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF ASSAM:STATE OF ASSAM:STATE OF ASSAM:STATE OF ASSAM:STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(SC)-1960-9-18] [REFERRED]
RAJA JAGANNATH BAKSH SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1962-4-20] [REFERRED TO]
HARI KRISHNA BHARGAV VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1965-10-26] [FOLLOWED]
R GOPINATHAN NAIR VS. PALODE PANCHAYAT [LAWS(KER)-1958-4-9] [REFERRED TO]
N N ANANTHANARAYANA IYER VS. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX OFFICER [LAWS(KER)-1958-11-25] [REFERRED TO]
V PADMANABHA RAVI VARMA RAJA VS. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR CHITTUR [LAWS(KER)-1962-10-31] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. R SUDARSAN BABU [LAWS(KER)-1983-8-28] [REFERRED TO]
JAGJIT RAI VOHRA, ETC. VS. THE STATE OF HARYANA, ETC. [LAWS(P&H)-1974-4-33] [REFERRED TO]
BABULAL AND OTHERS VS. GOWARDHANDAS AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-1955-10-16] [REFERRED TO]
P.J. JOSEPH, PROPRIETOR, FOREIGN LIQUORS VS. ASST. EXCISE COMMISSIONER AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-1952-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
K.C. SARMA VS. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND ANR. [LAWS(GAU)-1962-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RAGHUNANDAN PRASAD [LAWS(ALL)-1964-1-53] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD VS. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY-CUM- COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [LAWS(PAT)-2017-4-123] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is an application under Art. 32 of the Constitution for appropriate orders for the protection of what the petitioner claims to be his fundamental rights guaranteed by Arts. 14 and 31. This is said to be a test case for on its decision, we are told, depend the rights of numerous other persons whose interests are similar to those of the petitioner.
(2.)There is no serious controversy as to the facts material for the purpose of this application. They are shortly as follows: On 5-5-1948 the then Rules of eight Punjab States including Patiala and Nabha with the concurrence and guarantee of the Government of India entered into a Covenant agreeing to unite and integrate their territories in one State with a common executive, legislature and judiciary by the name of Patiala and East Punjab States Union, hereinafter compendiously referred to as the Pepsu. By Art. III (6) of the Covenant the then Ruler of Patiala became the first President or Raj Pramukh of the Council of Rulers and he is to hold the office during his lifetime. Article VI of the covenant is as follows:
" (1) The Ruler of each Covenanting State shall, as soon as may be practicable, and in any event not later than 20-8-1948, make over the administration of his State to the Raj Pramukh, and thereupon,

(a) all rights, authority and jurisdiction belonging to the Ruler which appertain, or are incidental to the Government of the Covenanting State shall vest in Union and shall hereafter be exercisable only as provided by this Covenant or by the Constitution to be framed thereunder;

(b) all duties and obligations of the Ruler pertaining or incidental to the Government of the Covenanting State shall devolve on the Union and shall be discharged by it;

(c) all the assets and liabilities of the Covenanting State shall be the assets and liabilities of the Union, and

(d) the military forces, if any of the Covenanting State shall become the military forces of the Union."

(3.)Article X provides for the formation of a Constituent Assembly to frame a constitution of a unitary type for the Union within the framework of the Covenant and the constitution of India. This constituent Assembly was also to function as the interim Legislature of the Union until an elected Legislature came into being. The proviso to cl. (2) of that Article runs as follows:
" Provided that until a Constitution framed by the Constituent Assembly comes into operation after receiving the assent of the Raj Pramukh, the Raj Pramukh shall have power to make and promulgate Ordinances for the peace and good Government of the Union or any part thereof, and any Ordinance so made shall, for the space of not more than six months from its promulgation have the like force of law as an Act passed by the Constituent Assembly; but any such Ordinance may be controlled or superseded by any such Act."

;


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