Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.41 seconds)
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Gurnam Kaur on 12 September, 1988 cites

Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. Etc on 10 July, 1985

PG NO 940 At the end of the day, we must make a mention that Shri Verghese, learned counsel for the respondent made a valiant effort to bring into play the principles laid down by this Court in Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors., [1985] 3 SCC 545 and Bombay Hawkers' Union & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors., [1985] 3 SCC 528. We are afraid, we cannot permit the question to be raised for two reasons. In the first place, no such point was taken in the writ petition nor any contention advanced before the High Court that the removal of the illegal encroachment by the Municipal Corporation constitutes a threat to life and liberty guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution or that the right to life includes a right to livelihood. Secondly, the rights of the parties now stand crystallized by the aforementioned judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge in the suit brought by the respondent, and the rights have to be worked out in terms of the decree passed by him which has since become final. Besides, the decision in Olga Tellis is of little avail. Chandrachud, CJ. speaking for the Constitution Bench observed that the word 'life' in Art. 21 included livelihood, but upheld the validity of ss. 313(1) and 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 which provided that the Commissioner may 'without notice, cause to be removed' obstructions as an encroachment on footpaths could not be regarded as unreasonable, unfair or unjust. The learned Chief Justice however said that the section conferred a discretionary power which like all power must be exercised reasonably and in conformity with the provisions of our Constitution. In Bombay Hawkers' Union, Chandrachud, CJ. speaking for himself and one of us (Sen, J.) held that the impugned provision was in the nature of a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public, on the exercise of the right of hawkers to carry on their trade or business. The learned Chief Justice added:
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 1065 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Bombay Hawkers' Union And Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation And Ors on 3 July, 1985

PG NO 940 At the end of the day, we must make a mention that Shri Verghese, learned counsel for the respondent made a valiant effort to bring into play the principles laid down by this Court in Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors., [1985] 3 SCC 545 and Bombay Hawkers' Union & Ors. v. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors., [1985] 3 SCC 528. We are afraid, we cannot permit the question to be raised for two reasons. In the first place, no such point was taken in the writ petition nor any contention advanced before the High Court that the removal of the illegal encroachment by the Municipal Corporation constitutes a threat to life and liberty guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution or that the right to life includes a right to livelihood. Secondly, the rights of the parties now stand crystallized by the aforementioned judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge in the suit brought by the respondent, and the rights have to be worked out in terms of the decree passed by him which has since become final. Besides, the decision in Olga Tellis is of little avail. Chandrachud, CJ. speaking for the Constitution Bench observed that the word 'life' in Art. 21 included livelihood, but upheld the validity of ss. 313(1) and 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 which provided that the Commissioner may 'without notice, cause to be removed' obstructions as an encroachment on footpaths could not be regarded as unreasonable, unfair or unjust. The learned Chief Justice however said that the section conferred a discretionary power which like all power must be exercised reasonably and in conformity with the provisions of our Constitution. In Bombay Hawkers' Union, Chandrachud, CJ. speaking for himself and one of us (Sen, J.) held that the impugned provision was in the nature of a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public, on the exercise of the right of hawkers to carry on their trade or business. The learned Chief Justice added:
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 65 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document
1   2 Next