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

1968 Supreme(Ker) 58

V.BALAKRISHNA ERADI, T.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY IYER, M.MADHAVAN NAIR
State of Kerala – Appellant
Versus
Annam – Respondent


Advocates:
In W. A. No. 30/68 :Advocate General, for Appellants; T.S Venkiteswara Iyer, (for Nos. 1 and 2), C. Sankaran Nair (for No. 3), for Respondents. In W. A. No. 76/68:K.V. Suryanarayana Iyer, for Appellant; Advocate General, for Respondents (Nos. 1, 3 and 4). In W. A. No. 77/68:K.V. Suryanarayana Iyer, for Appellant; Advocate General, for Respondents. In W. A. No. 78/68:K.V. Suryanarayana Iyer, for Appellant; Advocate General, for Respondents (Nos. 2 to 7). In W. A. No. 76/68:M/s. K. Velayudhan Nair and N.R.K. Nair, for Appellant; Advocate General, for Respondents. In W. A. No. 80/68:E. Easwara Iyer, for Appellant; Advocate General, for Respondents (Nos. 1 to 3); M/s. T.N. Subramania Iyer, V.R. Krishna Iyer, M.T. Paikaday, K.T. Harindranath, Cheriyan Manjooran and T.P. Kelu Nambiyar, Intervened.

Judgement

MADHAVAN NAIR, J. : - Writ Appeal No 30 of 1968 is by the State against the judgment*dated February 8, 1968, of Gopalan Nambiyar, J., in O. P. No. 4134 of 1967, wherein the Kerala Rice and Paddy (Procurement by Levy) Order, 1966, and Clause 4 of the Kerala Paddy and Rice (Declaration and Requisitioning of Stocks) Order, 1966, have been held violative of Constitutional provisions. The two Orders will be referred to hereinbelow as 'the Levy Order' and 'the Declaration Order' adopting the short-names used by the learned Judge.

* Reported in 1968 Ker LT 223.

2. The petitioners in the abovesaid O. P. (a mother and son) are admittedly cultivators of paddy in 30.49 acres of land - according to the State

they cultivate 34.91 acres - who challenged the Levy Order which compels them to sell paddy to Government on a graduated scale according to acreage against payment of price not exceeding the maximum price fixed by the Government, and the Declaration Order under which they might be compelled to declare the paddy in their possession or control and to sell it to the Government, as unconstitutional. By consent of parties, this O. P. was heard by the learned Judge, along with 720 others




















































































































































































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