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

1991 Supreme(Ori) 210

A.K.PATNAIK, ARIJIT PASAYAT
SARAT KUMAR MALU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.P.DAS, J.DAS GUPTA, M.S.HAQUE, U.C.Patnaik, Y.DAS

R. C. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) IN this writ application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a declaration that Section 56 (2) and S. 56 (2-a) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') are ultra vires Art. 14 of the Constitution of India, by reason of vesting of unbriddled, uncanalised, unregulated powers in forest officers.

( 2 ) THOUGH several grounds were taken in the writ application assailing the vires of the aforesaid provisions, challenge to the vires of S. 56 (2-a) was not canvassed before us on the ground of (a) of absence of guidelines, (b) that the provision for confiscation or criminal prosecution visited upon the person double jeopardy and (c) that the provision for confiscation is harsher than the procedure for trial before a criminal court, having regard to the decision of this Court in Jogender Singh v. State of Orissa (O. G. C. Nos. 2062, 2541 and 2697 of 1983 disposed of on 17-8-1990): Reported in (1990) 70 Cut LT 613, where the vires assailed on the aforesaid grounds was upheld.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has therefore, confined his submission to only aspect, namely, the provision contain








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