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

1967 Supreme(All) 17

SATISHCHANDRA
Farzand – Appellant
Versus
Mohan Singh – Respondent


Advocates:
Sant Prakash, for Petitioner; Krishna Swarup and Standing Counsel, for Opposite Parties.

ORDER :- This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution seeks an information in the nature of quo warranto requiring Sri Mohan Singh Munsif, Banda, the first respondent to show cause by what authority he is holding the office of Munsif.

2. The petitioner is one of the defendants to a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale instituted by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 against the petitioner who is alleged to be a subsequent purchaser and respondent No. 4, the vendor. The suit was filed on 6th of August, 1966, and is pending before Sri Mohan Singh Munsif, the first respondent Sri Mohan Singh was appointed as a temporary Munsif on 1-3-1961 under the U.P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules 1951. The petitioner challenges the constitutional validity of these rules. It is urged that the rules being in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Constitution are void and of no legal effect and appointments made thereunder to the Judicial Service of the State are illegal. The validity of the rules was challenged on the following grounds :

(1) That the rules had not been framed after consultation with the High Court as required by Article 234 of the Constitution.

(2) That the rules
























































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