REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

G. Mohan Rao Appellant

V/S

STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

M.P.V. SUNDARARAMIER AND CO. VS. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR [REFERRED TO]
LALITABEN VS. GORDHANBHAI BHAICHANDBHAI [REFERRED TO]
B.K. PAVITRA AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. O C MANDAWAR [REFERRED TO]
SAGHIR AHMAD VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RAI RAMKRISHNA VS. STATE OF BIHAR IN BOTH THE APPEALLS [REFERRED TO]
S S GADGIL VS. LAL AND CO [REFERRED TO]
P VAJRAVELU MUDALIAR MOST REV DR L MATHIAS VS. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR FOR LAND ACQUISITION WEST MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
JAORA SUGAR MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
JAWAHARMAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
DEVI DAS GOPAL KRISHNAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
J P JANI INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE IV WARD G AHMEDABAD VS. INDUPRASAD DEVSHANKER BHATT [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL COMM ITTEE AMRITSAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
PRITHVI COTTON MILLS LIMITED VS. BROACH BOROUGH MUNICIPALITY [REFERRED TO]
JANAPADA SABHA CHHINDWARA STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. CENTRAL PROVINCES SYNDICATE LTD:AMALGAMATED COALFIELDS LTD [REFERRED TO]
NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. VITHAL RAO [REFERRED TO]
GWALIOR RATON SILK MANUFACTURING WEAVING CO LIMITED VS. ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. AMBICA MILLS LTD [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA CHANDRA GANGOPADHYAYA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UJAGAR PRINTS II KWALITY SILK MILLS CO VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RISHIKESH VS. SALMA BEGUM [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
KAISER I HIND PRIVATE LIMITED VS. NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION MAHARASHTRA NORTH LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CO OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GIRNAR TRADERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. MAR APPRAEM KURI CO. LTD [REFERRED TO]
P L MEHRA VS. D R KHANNA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. KARNATAKA PAWN BROKERS ASSN. [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. TARSEM SINGH [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Indian Constitution ordains a structure of governance wherein the three organs of the State are entrusted with independent functions. The Legislature legislates on the law, the Executive puts the law into execution and the Judiciary being the sentinel on the qui vive reviews and enforces the law in light of its primary role as the guardian of the Constitution. Thus, we the people of India have embraced a system of separation of powers for securing checks and balances. Consequently, in day-to-day functioning of the government institutions many a times a perception emerges about the "overstepping" between three organs. Similar grievance has been made in the case at hand. The extent and manner in which the basis of a judicial determination of unconstitutionality of a legislation could be altered by the legislature by subsequently enacting a validating or reviving legislation, without overstepping on the jurisdiction of the constitutional Court, is the pivotal issue in this case.

(2.) The present case is outcome of a long chain of proceedings at different forums. Traversing the entire storyline may not be relevant for the determination of the question at hand. Thus, we are delineating only the relevant facts in brief for a proper perspective.

(3.) The resource in the form of land is an essential requirement for the development of a nation. At the same time, property rights of individuals have always had an important status in the hierarchy of rights. To resolve this apparent conflict between right to property of individuals and duty of State towards holistic development, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894[1] had been enacted as a uniform law for the whole country with the short title:

Click here to view full judgment.

G. MOHAN RAO Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address