BHAGCHAND DAGDUSA GUJRATHI Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA
LAWS(PVC)-1927-5-59
PRIVY COUNCIL
Decided on May 27,1927

BHAGCHAND DAGDUSA GUJRATHI Appellant
VERSUS
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

REKH CHAND NOP CHAND VS. GOVERNOR-GENERAL IN COUNCIL [LAWS(ALL)-1954-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
HUSSAIN ALI MIRZA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1962-4-19] [REFERRED TO]
TADLA LACHMAIAH VS. SUPERINTENDENT [LAWS(APH)-1967-8-28] [REFERRED TO]
COMMANDING OFFICER, AIRFORCE, GORAKHPUR AND ORS. VS. SUSHILA DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-2016-2-97] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. A PAREED PILLAITLKER [LAWS(KER)-1990-6-65] [REFERRED TO]
JAMMU COLD STORAGE AND GENERAL MILLS LTD VS. KHAIRATI LAL AND SONS [LAWS(J&K)-1960-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN DAS AND ORS. VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2014-4-48] [REFERRED TO]
J S BASAPPA VS. PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS NOW ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1957-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. RAGHUNANDAN SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1960-3-21] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. JIWAN DAS ARYA [LAWS(PAT)-1970-4-4] [REFERRED TO]
SAWAI SINGHAI NIRMAL CHAND VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1965-9-1] [REFERRED]
KDHONDOJI RAO VS. DOMINION OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-1954-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
FAKIRA TEJAJI AND ORS. VS. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE [LAWS(MPH)-1951-5-4] [REFERRED TO]
BABULAL VS. THE STATE [LAWS(MPH)-1954-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
MAUJIRAM KHAYALIRAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-1955-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF ORISSA VS. GOURI CHARAN KANUNGO AND [LAWS(ORI)-1965-7-22] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES VS. JANARDAN NANDA [LAWS(ORI)-1968-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHARANI VISHWAKARMA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1999-2-21] [REFERRED TO]
BHARDIA BROTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ORI)-1971-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
CERTIFICATE OFFICER VS. KASTURI CHAND MALU [LAWS(ORI)-1969-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
H RAJASEKAR VS. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES [LAWS(MAD)-2009-4-557] [REFERRED TO]
SRI VENKATARAMANA DEVARU AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MADRAS AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-1956-4-42] [REFERRED TO]
RUKMINI KUMAR DAS VS. THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SILCHAR MUNICIPAL BOARD AND ANR. [LAWS(GAU)-1950-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND VICE CHAIRMAN GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD VS. ASIATIC STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD [LAWS(SC)-2020-11-31] [REFERRED TO]
CHEKKUTTY VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1962-9-15] [REFERRED TO]
BAKSHI GHULAM MOHD VS. G M SADIQ [LAWS(J&K)-1968-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. NATWERLAL M BADIANI [LAWS(GJH)-2000-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. BRIJ NATH RAI [LAWS(ALL)-1970-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
SABIRA ASLAM SIKWANI VS. MOHAMMED YUSUF HUSSAIN [LAWS(BOM)-2003-2-48] [REFERRED TO]
SATYANARAYANA S MELKOTA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2002-9-116] [REFERRED]
BURIDEHING TEA CO LTD VS. DOMINION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1955-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
TARUBALA SAHA VS. NATH BANK LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1971-11-12] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHIR RANJAN HALDER VS. STATE OF W.B. AND ANOTHER [LAWS(CAL)-1961-8-33] [REFERRED TO]
PALETI SIVARAMAKRISHNAIAH VS. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER N C CANALS SATHENAPALLI [LAWS(APH)-1978-3-34] [REFERRED TO]
Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation and another -Petitioner VS. Presiding Officer,Labour Court and another -Respondents [LAWS(UTN)-2003-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
NAND KISHORE OWNER OF THE FIRM RAM PRASHAD RAM KUWAR VS. FIRM MAHESHWARI MILLS [LAWS(MPH)-1952-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA VS. ARVIND KUMAR CHOUBEY [LAWS(MPH)-2000-4-12] [REFERRED TO]
CHIKKAHANUMA alias MOTA VS. VENKATAMMA [LAWS(KAR)-1970-11-8] [FOLLOWED ON]
BHRAMAR LAL BAXI AND ANR. VS. PROMODE RANJAN CHAUDHURY AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-1962-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
PATIL AUTOMATION PRIVATE LIMITED VS. RAKHEJA ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2022-8-55] [REFERRED TO]
SODHI SHAMSHER SINGH VS. PEPSU STATE [LAWS(P&H)-1960-2-17] [REFERRED TO]
MD GOLAM RASID VS. DULAL MAJHI [LAWS(CAL)-1992-2-33] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. BAIJNATH SARDA [LAWS(CAL)-1970-1-3] [REFERRED TO]
RAMBRAHMA CHABRI VS. DOMINION OF INDIA AT PRESENT UNION OF INDIA UOI [LAWS(CAL)-1957-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
NEW CHURULIA COAL CO LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1959-4-10] [REFERRED TO]
REKHA VS. VEERMATI [LAWS(ALL)-2012-4-54] [REFERRED TO]
BOMMIDALA POORNAISH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-1966-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
SATYANARAYANA S MELKOTA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2002-11-88] [REFERRED TO]
BALLABHDAS ESHWARDAS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-1956-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI NARAIN RAM NARAIN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1976-1-19] [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHARAN MAHTO VS. CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY [LAWS(PAT)-1963-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. PROMODE NARAIN SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1962-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN LAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-1960-11-13] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. KAMAKSHA PRASAD SHARMA [LAWS(PAT)-1962-1-15] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1969-8-18] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. ASSOCIATED STONE INDUSTRIES KOTA LTD [LAWS(RAJ)-1970-8-13] [REFERRED TO]
RANJEET SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1952-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
Y SAVARIMUTHU VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS [LAWS(SC)-2019-4-150] [REFERRED TO]
GRAM PANCHAYAT BHADWA PARGANA & DISTT. JALAUN & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. & 6 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2014-11-398] [REFERRED TO]
ZILA PARISHAD, KANPUR AND ANOTHER VS. RAM BHAROSEY AWASTHI [LAWS(ALL)-1977-5-37] [REFERRED TO]
AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITEE VS. RANVIJAY SINGH [LAWS(BOM)-1993-10-38] [REFERRED TO]
PILLARISETTI GOTILINGAM VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1960-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
CHUNDURU CHENCHURAMAIAH SETT VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ANDHRA PRADESH KURNOOL [LAWS(APH)-1964-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
A SATHYAPAL VS. YASMIN BANU ANSARI [LAWS(KAR)-2004-2-27] [REFERRED TO]
RAMANAND VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-1957-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
DOOM DOMA TEA COMPANY LIMITED CALCUTTA 16 VS. UNION OF INDIA OWNING THE NORTH FRONTIER RAILWAY [LAWS(MAD)-1981-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
ANIRUDHA BEHERA AND ANR. VS. DHANU BEHERA AND ANR. [LAWS(ORI)-1961-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
Putli Bai VS. Municipal Corp. Gwalior [LAWS(MPH)-1962-5-13] [REFERRED TO]
SALIGRAM AND ANOTHER VS. SHIV SHANKAR LAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-1970-5-53] [REFERRED]
PONNUSWAMY VS. NAMBEESAN [LAWS(KER)-1978-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP KUMAR AGARWAL AND OTHERS VS. MAHESH CHANDRA GUPTA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(UTN)-2017-11-17] [REFERRED TO]
PROVINCE OF BIHAR VS. KAMAKSHYA NARAIN SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1950-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE VS. RANVIJAYSINGH S O CHANNUSINGH DIKKAT [LAWS(BOM)-1993-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
PRITHVISINGH DEVISING VS. HASAN ALLI VAZIRKHAN [LAWS(BOM)-1950-8-19] [REFERRED TO]
NATHUBHAI DHULAJI VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BOMBAY [LAWS(BOM)-1957-10-10] [REFERRED TO]
YESHVANTARAO BALWANTRAO CHAVAN VS. K T MANGALMURTI [LAWS(BOM)-1957-11-4] [REFERRED TO]
KUMARI BAI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2005-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
GAJJAN SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA UOI [LAWS(HPH)-1955-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
JILEKHABAI ADREMAN VS. COMPETENT OFFICER [LAWS(GJH)-1960-11-5] [REFERRED]
HARISH CHAND VS. UNION OF INDIA UOI [LAWS(ALL)-1961-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
VOL : 1; SUNNI CENTRAL BOARD OF WAQFS AND ORS VS. GOPAL SINGH VISHARAD AND ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2010-9-626] [REFERRED]
GOPAL SINGH VISHARAD AND ORS. (AYODHYA CASE) VS. ZAHOOR AHMAD AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-9-467] [REFERRED TO]
DALVEER SINGH VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-2-80] [REFERRED TO]
NEW CHURULIA COAL CO LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1955-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
P C MAHANTI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1960-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ANR. VS. KEDARNATH AGARWALLA [LAWS(GAU)-1953-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
RAHIMUNNISSA VS. MOHD ISMAIL [LAWS(APH)-1955-9-10] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD HASHAM VS. HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(APH)-1957-2-3] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. SANKARAN [LAWS(KER)-1961-11-33] [REFERRED TO]
HIMACHAL FRUIT GROWERS CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING AND PROCESSING SOCIETY LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(HPH)-2008-2-6] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY SINGH VS. CHIEF MUNICIPAL OFFICER AND ANOTHER [LAWS(CHH)-2018-9-177] [REFERRED TO]
HAJI AHMAD RAZA VS. MUNICIPAL BOARD [LAWS(ALL)-1952-3-6] [REFERRED TO]
THE UNION OF INDIA (UOI) VS. KUTHARF TRADING CO. LTD. [LAWS(GAU)-1968-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI NARAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-1961-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH PRASAD AGARWALA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-1968-3-11] [REFERRED TO]
NASEEMA TEXTILES AZHIKODE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-1970-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SUNDRI ALIAS SHAM SUNDRI RAM RACHHPAL BERI VS. COLLECTOR LUDHIANA [LAWS(P&H)-1959-4-18] [REFERRED TO]
GWALIOR SUGAR CO LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-1991-1-31] [REFERRED TO]
NANI AMMA NANNINI AMMA VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1962-8-20] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE VS. RAMKARAN GANESHILAL [LAWS(MPH)-1958-4-9] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M.P., BHOPAL VS. BHAGWANT RAO [LAWS(MPH)-1971-2-21] [REFERRED TO]
SELVAM ESTATES VS. L THANGAPANDIA MAHARAJAN [LAWS(MAD)-1991-3-46] [REFERRED TO]
THOLAPPA IYENGAR ALIAS ALAGAR IYENGAR VS. EXECUTIVE OFFICER KALLAGAR DEVASTHANAM ALAGARKOIL MADURAI [LAWS(MAD)-1993-4-55] [REFERRED TO]
GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE ALUDA VS. SH PUSHPA KANWAR [LAWS(RAJ)-1966-4-30] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMSHAD KHATUN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2010-1-91] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. BAMADEB PANIGRAHI [LAWS(ORI)-1970-8-5] [REFERRED TO]
DOMINION OF INDIA VS. PURSHOTTAM DAS BRIJNANDAN PRASAD [LAWS(ALL)-1959-9-28] [REFERRED TO]
ABIDA BEGAM VS. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-1959-3-23] [REFERRED TO]
VELLAYAN CHETTIAR VS. PROVINCE OF MADRAS [LAWS(BOM)-1947-7-7] [REFERRED TO]
BAJIRAO TUKARAM MANAV VS. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER [LAWS(BOM)-1984-10-15] [REFERRED TO]
GRAM PANCHAYAT, KUHI AND ANOTHER VS. VIJAYKUMAR RADHESHYAM BHALOTIYA [LAWS(BOM)-1986-3-77] [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJAN AGARWALLA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1960-1-7] [REFERRED TO]
RANENDRA NATH PAL VS. COMMISSIONERS OF DHULIYAN MUNICIPAL OFFICE [LAWS(CAL)-1955-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
SURJIT SINGH ATWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1964-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
SAWKAT ALI VS. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [LAWS(GAU)-1971-2-9] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MADRAS VS. EASTERN MATCH CO TIRUMANGALAM [LAWS(APH)-1963-2-6] [REFERRED TO]
NAGAR KSHETRA SAMITI THRU OFFICE INCHARGE VS. KANCHAN SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2023-3-149] [REFERRED TO]
AMRIT JUTE CO VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1986-5-18] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN MAHTO AND ANOTHER VS. BAL KARAN CHAMAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(PAT)-1971-2-18] [REFERRED TO]
MANMOHAN DAS VS. MADHUNAGAR POWERLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-1975-4-24] [REFERRED TO]
YERIKALA SUNKALAMMA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE [LAWS(SC)-2025-3-77] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. CHHATTAR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1972-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
CHIRAGUDDIN VS. URMILA RANI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-9-145] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. PRABHAKAR [LAWS(KAR)-2000-3-77] [REFERRED TO]
EBRAHIMBHAI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1974-2-7] [REFERRED TO]
ERACHSHAW HORMUSJI GINWALA VS. SECRETARY OF STATE [LAWS(BOM)-1942-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
HUBLI ELECTRICITY CO LTD VS. GOVERNMENT OF BOMBAY [LAWS(BOM)-1944-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
LADY DINBAI DINSHAW PETIT VS. DOMINION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-1950-9-12] [REFERRED TO]
JUHI CHAWLA VS. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH BOARD [LAWS(DLH)-2021-6-26] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF HYDERABAD VS. T V SARMA [LAWS(APH)-1970-9-19] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SATYA NARAINJI [LAWS(CAL)-1969-12-18] [REFERRED TO]
LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. YASHRAJ SINGH & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-217] [REFERRED TO]
SARKAR-E-AALI ZARIA NAZIM VS. ATHAR [LAWS(APH)-1957-4-20] [REFERRED TO]
LUCKNOW NAGAR MAHAPALIKA VS. SARDAR KARAMJEET SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-1961-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
YVETTE MARIE AGUIAR VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF BOMBAY [LAWS(BOM)-2003-7-186] [REFERRED TO]
QAMARUDDIN VS. UNION OF INDIA UOI [LAWS(ALL)-1982-1-20] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) VS. MANGILAL JANAKIPRASAD [LAWS(GAU)-1978-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
CALCUTTA SOFT DRINKS PVT LTD VS. CALCUTTA MUNICIAPL CORPORATION [LAWS(CAL)-2007-1-6] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Viscount Sumner, J - (1.)In this action forty-eight plaintiffs joined in suing the Secretary of State for India and the Collector and District Magistrate of Nasik for two kinds of relief, (a) a declaration that certain official notices and orders were ultra vires and invalid, and (b) an injunction permanently restraining all executive action thereunder. Unless the right to the first relief was made out, the prayer for the second necessarily failed. The suit was begun less than two months after notice of the intention to bring it had been given to the respondents. It was dismissed by the District Judge on all grounds, and by the High Court of Bombay as well, but, as to one of the learned Judges, not altogether on the same grounds. The plaintiffs now appeal.
(2.)In April, 1921, serious disorder occurred at Malegaon, in the District of Nasik, Bombay, connected with the Khilafat agitation, and in the consequent unlawful assemblies and riots there was loss of life and much damage to property. The Mahomedan weavers, who formed the large majority of the male inhabitants of the place, were the chief culprits, though it is not likely that they acted without instigation from other parties. Some persons were punished criminally, but the question remained how the injured parties were to be compensated and how order was to be maintained in the future. An inquiry was accordingly held, and amounts were fixed, by way of compensation to persons who had suffered in the riots. The Government decided to put in force the provisions of the Bombay District Police Act No. IV of 1890, and orders were duly made for the employment of additional police at the expense of the inhabitants and for payment of compensation for the injuries sustained. Under these orders the income-tax payers, a small class, and the great body of the weavers were designated as the parties to pay the sums required. No question as to the correctness of these proceedings now arises.
(3.)Under the Act it was for the Collector to get in the amount of the compensation and for the Municipality of Malegaon to enforce payment of the police rate. Both were unable to do so. Coercion of the weavers generally, who had few belongings and lived in the main from hand to mouth, proved to be impracticable. As to the rate payers, the Municipality lacked means of enforcing a general payment, and ware openly set at defiance. By the spring of the following year the position had become exceedingly unsatisfactory. Some small sums had been collected from the income-tax payers but, in spite of much patience on the part of the executive and a lapse of time sufficient to have allayed the original turbulence, the measures taken under the Bombay District Police Act had practically come to nothing.


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