SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1966 Supreme(AP) 216

KUMARAYYA, SHARFUDDIN AHMED
Pidikiti Madhava Rao – Appellant
Versus
State OF A. P. , Secretary, Planning and Panchayat Raj – Respondent


KUMARAYYA, J.

( 1 ) THESE various petitions, either for writ of mandamus or for nformation in the nature of quo warranto, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raise certain common questions, legal and constitutional in nature. W. P. Nos. 1393, 1394) 1359) 1387 and 1360 of 1964 are mainly concerned with the validity and constitutionality of some of the provisions of Act XIII of 1964 which has retrospectively amended the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Samit and Zilla Parishads act (XXXV of 1959) and validated the action taken by the Government without having initial jurisdiction in that behalf. The other Writ Petitions, 1604, 1605,. 1453 and 1454 of 1964, raising as they do incidentally the question of validity of certain provisions of the Amending Act, are mainly concerned with the question whether the rules made in the year 1964 under section 69 of the Andhra Pradesh panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads Act (XXXV of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) became effective on and July, 1964, even before they were laid before the Legislature as contemplated by the Statute. They also question the legality of the elections held thereunder before that date. Similar is t












































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top