Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.39 seconds)
Man Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 23 August, 1985 cites

Azad Rickhaw Pullers Union (Regd.) Ch. ... vs State Of Punjab & Others on 5 August, 1980

We are unable to hold that the Punjab Act of 1976 is ultra vires and that the scheme propounded by this 'Court in Azad Rickshaw Pullers Union (supra) is unworkable and ineffective. We believe that given appropriate compliance the scheme will provide adequate relief to the rickshaw pullers and constitute an effective supplementary code fulfilling the object of the Punjab Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 9 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978

The petitioners contend that 8.3 o the Punjab Act constitutes an unreasonable restriction on their fundamental right under sub-cl.(g) of clause (1) of Article 19 of the Constitution to carry on their occupation of plying cycle rickshaws because the exercise of that right has been mate dependent upon their owning the cycle rickshaws piled by them. It is urged that the constitutional validity of the impugned legislation cannot be sustained on the basis of an administrative scheme which has not been sanctioned by it, and there is nothing in the Punjab Act itself which enables rickshaw pullers to acquire proprietary rights in cycle rickshaws plied by them. It is urged that while the object of the statute has been expressed in 8.3 of the Punjab Act, there is nothing in the Act which provides the machinery for achieving that object. It is not sufficient, it is said, to provide that 676 the rickshaw puller should own the cycle rickshaw which he plies. The statute should have provided the mechanics of a system which would have enabled rickshaw pullers, in their abject poverty, to become the owners of such vehicles. No such provision having been made in the statute, it is submitted, the Act represents at best a declaration of policy and nothing more. Our attention has been invited to the observations of this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978] 2 S.C.R. 621, where it has been elaborately explained that Article 21 must be read with Article 19 in adjudging the constitutional validity of an Act, and in doing so the consequences brought about by the impugned legislation, and of the action under it, on the citizen must constitute the test of its validity rather than the object of the Legislature or the form of action.
Supreme Court of India Cites 134 - Cited by 1982 - M H Beg - Full Document

The Lord Krishna Sugar Mills Ltd.,And ... vs The Union Of India And Another(And ... on 6 May, 1959

But learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the validity of s.3 of the Punjab Act cannot be sustained on the basis of a scheme which can be varied it will by the authors of the scheme during the operation of the Punjab Act. The scheme, it is said, may be altered to a degree where it cease to be identifiable with the object of the impugned legislation. Reliance is placed by learned counsel on The Lord Krishna Sugar Mills Ltd. & Anr. v. The Union of India & Anr. [1960] 1 S.C.R. 39. In that case, the Court laid down that it was permissible to judge the reasonableness of a law on the basis of the surrounding circumstances as well as of contemporaneous legislation enacted as part of a single scheme. But it also laid down the limitations circumscribing that principle. Subba Rao. J said:
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 96 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document
1