Lawyer In Chandigarh - An Overview

Kaul has placed reliance on Haradhan Saha v. 1978 stands settled by the decisions in Lakshmana Gowda (supra) and Syed Bhasheer Ahamed (supra). It is his further submission that the detenu has no vested right neither under Article 22(5) of the Constitution nor under Section 3(1) and (3) of the COFEPOSA Act to assert that unless the order rejecting the representation itself is communicated there is a procedural irregularity which invalidates the detention.

State of Kerala[5], but the High Court by the impugned order placed reliance on the earlier view. Reliance herein is placed on the following Coal Limited the law laid down by this Court in respect of Articles 25 and 26 till date and particularly the efficacy of the Agamas the Constitution Bench came to the following conclusion. Emphasis has to be on the satisfaction of the competent authority which is demonstrable from the file and that would suffice the legal requirement.

The legislation in this respect, as we have shown, does not interfere with any religious practice or matter of religion and, therefore, is not invalid. Bhat, learned Advocate for the respondents and have gone through the record and considered the rival submissions. To bolster the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Upon a consideration of the various earlier decisions of this Court specifically referred to in Adithayan (supra), details of which need not again be noticed herein (such details are being separately noticed later, though in a different context) including the decision in Seshammal (supra) it was held that rights claimed solely on the basis of caste cannot enjoy the protection of Article 25 and 26 and no earlier decision of this Court including Seshammal (supra) would support the contention that even duly qualified persons can be barred from performing Poojas on the sole ground that such a person is not a Brahmin by birth or pedigree.

In the present case the amendment of Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu Act as made by Ordinance No. In view of sub-section (2) of Section 55, as it now stands amended, the choice of the trustee in the matter of appointment of an Archaka is no longer limited by the operation of the rule of next-in-line of succession in temples where the usage was to appoint the Archaka on the hereditary principle. Elaborating further, it is put forth by him that once a subjective satisfaction has been arrived at on consideration of the relevant materials placed before the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority, the order is absolutely legally sustainable and there was no warrant for any interference by the High Court.

The reference to the opinion of Sri R. Criticizing the aforesaid analysis and the ultimate view expressed by the High Court, Mr. We do not see how the above view of this Court in any way strikes a discordant note with the views expressed in any earlier decision including Seshammal(supra). Kaul, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India has submitted that the High Court has fallen into error by opining that in the obtaining factual matrix, Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India has been violated.

It is argued by him that the High Court has been wholly misguided by the aspect that the order rejecting the representation was not communicated by the detaining authority, for there is no requirement in law that it has to be communicated by the said authority. The law on the point as to the rights of an alienee of an Inam land where the alienation had occurred between 01. To that extent, and to that extent alone, the trustee is released from the obligation imposed on him by Section 28 of the principal Act to administer the affairs in accordance with that part of the usage of a temple which enjoined hereditary appointments.

Sampat Anand Shetty, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. has, therefore, to necessarily lose its efficacy. 15 of 2006 Advocates (blog here) Advocates (look at this) (as already noted). The trustee is not bound to make the appointment on the sole ground that the candidate, is the next-in-line of succession to the last holder of office. 6 of 2005 has not been continued by the Amendment Act No. It is urged by him that the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in Lekha Nandakumar (supra) had already been diluted in Babu v.

After expounding the law in the above manner, it was held in Adithayan (supra) that even proof of any such practice since the pre-constitutional days (which in any case was not forthcoming) cannot sustain such a claim as the same would be in derogation of constitutional values and opposed to public policy or social decency. The issues in Seshammal(supra) were entirely different and the discussions therein (para 12) proceeds on the basis that entry to the sanctum sanctorum for a particular denomination is without any reference to caste or social status.

Shri Parasaran has further urged that curtailment of the Advocates [look at this] freedoms guaranteed by Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution can only be made by the legislature and even a legislative exercise in this regard is circumscribed by the limitations contained in both Articles 25 and 26. It has been further canvassed by him that there Advocates [look at this] has been no abuse of discretion but on the contrary a complete application of mind, for all relevant materials have been taken into consideration which is reflective from the file and in such a situation, Advocates (look at this) the order of detention is not vulnerable in law.