Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.29 seconds)Article 77 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. & Anr vs Broach Borough Municipality & Ors on 25 April, 1969
The
reliance placed upon the decision of this Court by the learned
Counsel in case of Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Broach
Borough Municipality and Ors., reported in AIR 1968 Gujarat,
124, is ill-founded inasmuch
as, it was not a case where the view was taken by the earlier Bench
at a stage where there were no relevant documents on record and
thereafter when the matter was once again to be considered the
documents were produced on record. Hence, the said decision is of
no help to the learned Counsel for the appellant concerned.
Article 166 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Major E. G. Barsay vs The State Of Bombay on 24 April, 1961
Sub-Article
(3) provides for enabling power with the President to make Rules for
more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of
India, and for the allocation of the business amongst the Ministers.
Therefore, the orders which are not expressly made in the name of
the President, its authorization can be questioned, since the
immunity under Article 77 would not be available, but at that stage,
it would be for the Government of India to satisfy that the orders
were, in fact, made by it, though expressly not stated in the name
of the President. The contention that since it has not been stated
in any of the general orders, which are sought to be relied upon by
the Railways, it cannot be termed as that of the Central Government
in view of the Article 77(1) of the Constitution of India is on the
erroneous interpretation of Article 77(2) of the Constitution. If
the bar of questionableness as provided under Article 77(2) of the
Constitution is not available, it will be for the Court concerned to
examine as to whether such orders are
made by the Government of India or not and at that stage, the burden
would be upon the Government of India or the authority concerned, as
the case may be, to show that the decisions were taken by the
competent authority as per the Rules of business and signed by the
person, who had authority for such purpose. At this stage, we may
refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Major
E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay, reported at AIR 1962 SC, 1762
and more particularly the observations made at paragraph 25,
relevant of which reads as under:-
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
1