Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.33 seconds)Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors on 19 December, 1975
"Further, in my view, in order to maintain the writ application the petitioner has to establish that some of the legal rights of the petitioner have been infringed. In the instant case the petitioner was carrying on the business on the basis of the old regulations and that the old regulations have been repealed and a new regulation had been promulgated in the year 1984. In this particular case the petitioners and others who are carrying on business were conferred rights under the regulation and they cannot have any independent right devoid of regulation. When rights have been created under the regulation it is well within the jurisdiction of the authority concerned to change the regulation and/or to repeal the regulation. So, it does not violate any of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India and/or it does not fall beyond the scope of the rule making power. By this regulation the petitioner's and the existing agent's right had not been taken away and/or interfered with. On the contrary, a scheme had been framed under which temporary licence could be granted to the applicant, who fulfils the conditions laid down in regulations 5 and 6 and a holder of a temporary licence can get a permanent licence if he could successfully pass at the examination. The petitioners are not affected at all by the regulation but the petitioners, it appears, intended to create a monopoly in the trade to the exclusion of new which has been described by the Delhi High Court as creating a kind of 'close shop' which is on the face of it arbitrary and contrary to public policy. Accordingly, I hold that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the validity of the regulation concerned. I also fully agree with the decisions of the Delhi High Court cited by Mr. Bose."
The Maharashtra Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1953
Nagar Rice & Flour Miills & Ors vs N. Teekappa Gowda & Bros. & Ors on 27 February, 1970
In the case of The Nagar Rice and Flour Mills (supra) it was held that the owners of an existing rice mill shifted its existing location and obtained the necessary permission for change of location from the Director of Food & Civil Supplies, even if it be assumed that the previous sanction has to be obtained from the authorities before the machinery is moved from its existing site, the competitor in the business (owner of another rice mill) can have no grievance against the grant of permission permitting the installation on a new site.
Mohd. Ibrahim Khan Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors on 21 September, 1979
In the case of Mohd. Ibrahim Khan and Ors. (supra) it was held that since the members of public were not objecting at initial stage of granting 'No Objection Certificate' they cannot subsequently object at time of application for licence for cinema and it can claim to be heard in appeal filed by the applicant.
1