PREMCHAND JAIN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is mainly directed against-

(2.) IN Miscellaneous Petition No. 126 of 1965, some other existing operators have claimed similar reliefs in regard to the same Scheme No. 2. For like reliefs, similar miscellaneous Petitions, Nos. 129 and 159 of 1965 in regard to Scheme No. 4, No. 171 of 1965 in regard to Scheme No. 5, Nos. 157, 165, 169, 170 and 243 of 1965 in regard to Scheme No. 7 and Nos. 137, 149, 158 and 168 of 1965 in regard to scheme No. 9 have also been filed by some existing operators affected by those schemes.

(3.) THE petitioner in this case has, in Addition, called in question Scheme No. 2 as initially published under Section 68c of the Act and also challenged the vires of the explanation inserted under Section 68d (1) of the Act and the validity of Rule 6 of the Rules framed under Section 681 of the Act. The aforesaid Explanation and Rule 6 and the Schemes Nos. 5, 7 and 9 as published under Section 68c of the Act have been assailed in Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 165, 168, 169, 170, 171 and 243 of 1965 also.