LexLords NRI Legal Services London By NRI Legal Services LexLords
NRI legal services - https://lexlords.com/nri-legal-services-in-united-kingdom-uk/. Nagpur Conference of Society of St. A majority of this court held that at any rate section 5 (1) of the West Bengal Special Courts Act in so far as it authorised the State to direct "cases" to be tried by the Special Court and the notification issued thereunder offended against the provisions of article 14 of the Consti- tution and as such were void under article 13. that the impugned section 7 of the amending Act (VII of 1950) is unconstitutional 'in that it infringes Subodh Gopal Bose's fundamental right to property guaranteed by article 31.
nIn support NRI Legal Services of the first ground on which the preliminary objection is rounded reliance is placed by learned coun- sel for the appellant on the judgment of this Court in Case No. All these steps are various alternative means to meet the public purpose. A wide range of choices may exist. The nexus between the taking of property and the public purpose springs necessarily into existence if the former is capable of answering the latter. The only authority which Mr. In State of Karnataka v.
On the other hand, NRI legal services (check that) if the purpose is a private or non-public one, the mere fact that the hand that acquires or requires is Government or a public corporation, does not make the purpose automatically a public purpose. In the light of the foregoing discussions and the conclusions reached by me I now proceed to examine the contention. 297 of 1951 (The State of West Bengal v. There may be many processes of satisfying a public purpose. Sinha could cite in support of his contention is the decision of the Nagpur High Court in Kisan Krishna Ji v.
Ranganatha Reddy [1977] INSC 195; (1977) 4 SCC 471 Krishna Iyer, J. It is to be noticed that the learned Judge, who decided this case, himself took the opposite view in the case of Subordinate Judge, First Class, Hoshangabad v nThis view has been taken and, in our opinion quite rightly, in a number of decisions by the Calcutta,(1) Patna,(2) Allahabad(3) and Lahore(4) High Courts. It is contended that the opinion expressed by the majority of this Court in' the West Bengal case on the corresponding part of section S (1) of the West Bengal Special Courts Act was not necessary for the purposes of that appeal and re- quires reconsideration The notification issued by the State of West Bengal under that Act was, however, different from the notification issued by the State of Saurashtra in that the West Bengal notification directed certain specific "cases" to be tried by the Special Court constituted under the West Bengal Special Courts Act.
The Saurash- tra notification, however, has been issued quite obviously under that part of section 11 which authorises the State Government to direct "offences' ', "classes of offences" or "classes of cases" to be tried by the Special Court and the question before us on the present appeal is whether that part of section 11 under 471 which the present notification has been issued offends against the equal protection clause of our Constitution.
That case was concerned with the validity of the trial of the respondent therein by a Special Court consti- tuted under the provisions of the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950 (West Bengal Act X of 1950). That notification had obviously been issued under that part of section 5 (1) of the West Bengal Special Courts Act which authorised the State Govern- ment to direct particular "cases" to be tried by the Special Court. If a fleet of cars is desired for conveyance of public officers, the purpose is a public one.
The preamble to that Act recited that it was "expedient to provide for the speedier trial of certain offences". If the purpose is for servicing the public, as governmental purposes ordinarily are, then everything desiderated for subserving such public purpose falls under the broad and expanding rubric. If the same fleet of cars is sought for fulfilling the tourist appetite of friends and relations of the same public officers, it is a private purpose. The argument is 6--95 S. The State may need chalk or cheese, pins, pens or planes, boats, buses or buildings, carts, cars, or eating houses or any other of the innumerable items to run a welfare-oriented administration or a public corporation or answer a community requirement.
The authority is undoubtedly in his favour as it proceeds upon the assumption that the idea underlying the provision of section 2(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act is that if a person can be punished by some other tribunal, then the High Court should not entertain any proceeding for contempt. Sections 3, 4 and 5 (1) of the West Bengal Special Courts Act, 1950, reproduced substantially, if not verbatim, the provisions of sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Saurashtra Ordinance of 1948 as subse- quently amended.
The State may walk into the open market and buy the items, movable and immovable, to fulfil the public purpose; or it may compulsorily acquire from some private persons possession and ownership the articles needed to meet the public purpose; it may requisition, instead of resorting to acquisition; it may take on loan or on hire or itself manufacture or produce.
