K. C. DAS GUPTA, J. C. SHAH, B. P. SINHA, K. N. WANCHOO, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR
Prem Chand Garg – Appellant
Versus
Excise Commissioner, U. P. – Respondent
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. (On behalf of himself, B. P. Sinha C.J.I., K.N. Wanchoo and K C. Das Gupta, JJ.): This is a petition under Art. 32 and it raises an interesting and important question about the validity of one of the Rules made by this Court in exercise of its powers under Art. 145 of the Constitution. The impugned Rule is Rule 12 in Order XXXV. It provides that the Court may, in the proceedings to which the said Order applies, impose such terms as to costs and as to the giving of security as it thinks fit. One of the proceedings covered by Order XXXV is a petition under Art. 32. The petitioners Prem Chand Garg and Anr., partners of M/s. Industrial Chemical Corporation, Ghaziabad, have filed under Art. 32 Petition No. 348 of 1961 impeaching the validity of the order passed by the Excise Commissioner refusing permission to the Distillery to supply power alcohol to the petitioners. This petition was admitted on the 12th December, 1961 and a Rule was ordered to be issued to the respondents, the Excise Commissioner of UP., Allahabad, and the State of U.P. At the time when the rule was thus issued, this Court directed under the impugned Rule that the petitioners should deposit
Relied on : State of Bombay v. Bombay Education Society
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras
Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Referred to : R. M. D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochunni Moopil Nayar v. State of Madras
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Bombay
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.