Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 34 (0.35 seconds)
K.V. Kadiresan & Com., By Partner K.V. ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Reptd, By The ... on 14 June, 1984 cites

State Of Mysore vs H. Sanjeeviah on 16 January, 1967

Petitioners contend that under Article 302 only Parliament can impose restrictions on trade, commerce and intercourse between one State and another or within any part of the territory of India and when Article 304(b) confers power on the State Legislature to make a law imposing reasonable restrictions on freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse without or within the State in public interest, after the previous sanction of the President of India, and, such a condition precedent having not been complied with, and the rules having been made by the executive Government, and not by the State Legislature, they are illegal. Mr. D. Raju, learned Counsel for some of the petitioners, in strenuously advancing this point relied Upon State of Mysore v. H. Sanjeeviah wherein it was held that the two provisos to Rule 2 of the Transit Rules framed under Mysore Forest Act are restrictive in nature, and they having not been made by the Legislature of that State, but by the executive Government in exercise of delegated authority, Article 304 being an exception to Article 301, the impugned provisos therein were invalid. By referring to The Dist.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 54 - J C Shah - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next