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

1982 Supreme(Guj) 140

A.P.RAVANI, M.P.THAKKAR
BABUBHAI JASHBHAI PATEL – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: HARUBHAI MEHTA, K.G.VAKHARIA, N.P.NANAVATI

M. P. THAKKAR, J.

( 1 ) HIGH Policy Decisions which can make or mar better or bitter Central-State relationsare these to be made by the Political Managers of the State chosen by the people in that behalf or by private citizens (even if they are leaders of the elected Opposition) is one of the questions which has surfaced in this matter. It has surfaced along with the question whether such private citizens can be permitted to fling a challenge in the name of promoting interest of the State which if successful can ruin the economy of the State and create economic chaos. Such would be the outcome because if the impugned notifications are voided there will exist no legal authority whatsoever for recovering royalty/for the crude oil produced in the state (being collected at Rs. 61. 00 per metric tonne) which is considered rather low by the petitioners. Not only that even the royalty recovered for several years in the past may well have to be refunded. And yet another important question has also been raised: Whether Article 131 (which excludes the jurisdiction of all Courts except the Supreme Court in regard to suits for resolving disputed claims between State and Centre) of the Constitut


















































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