Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.27 seconds)
Dhanna Mal Sehaj Ram And Ors. vs The State Of Punjab And Ors. on 14 February, 1975 cites

Ramjidas And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 August, 1953

48. We are of the view that the abovesaid contention stems from a fallacious assumption that the impugned Fourth Amendment Order is to be deemed as State Legislation. The Essential Commodities Act is a central statute and Section 3 thereof empowers the Central Government to issue orders within the scope of the said provision. Section 5 of the Act, however, clearly provides for the delegation of the legislative power and provides that the Central Government may by notified order direct that the power to make orders or issue notifications under Section 3 may also be ex-ercisable by the State Government or such officer or authority subordinate to a State Government. There is no dispute that the Central Government has in terms delegated the legislative power under Section 5 to the State of Punjab and it is thereafter that the orders under the Essential Commodities Act had been issued by the State Government. Now it is settled law that the act of the agent is the act of the principal and therefore when the Punjab State acts as a delegate of the Central Government then it must be deemed as the act of the Central Government itself. The impugned orders, therefore, in the eye of law are central legislation and thus not subject to the restrictions imposed by Sub-clause (3) of Article 31 of the Constitution of India. Reliance was placed by Mr. Harbans Lal, on Ramjidas v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1954 Raj 97 (FB) but it suffices to mention that this authority does not in any way advance this argument on behalf of the petitioners.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

P. V. Sivarajan vs The Union Of India And Another on 11 December, 1958

P. V. Sivarajan v. The Union of India, AIR 1959 SC 556, has then been referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent for the proposition that primarily the validity of a rule framed under an Act can be successfully challenged if it is shown that it is inconsistent with the provisions of the parent Act or that it has been made in excess of the powers conferred on the rule-making authority. Counsel rightly pointed out that in the present case no such contention has even been remotely raised on behalf of the petitioners, in this context.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 21 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document
1   2 Next