SUSHIL KUMAR MUKHERJEE Vs. MOTHER DAIRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment of my learned brother Ray, J. , admirably clear, precise and reasoned, having received my full concurrence, should have husband me into silence. But between what things are and that they should be there is very often a gap. This pre-factory note of mine may be such a manifestation. Not so much necessary, but not irrelevant either.

(2.) THINGS around us are ophemeral and mortal. And therefore our aspiration for eternity or immortality, even when cast in the frame of the Vedic prayer for being led from death to immortality (Mtrityormamamritang Gamaya), may sound to be mere wishful thinking. Our desire to stay for ever (Sthiratwamhchanti) was described by Yudhisthira in Mahabharata as the greatest wonder. Knowing that everything would end, we still fondly hope that we would not end. Whether young lovers clasped in amourous grasp (Kanthaslesha-Pranavini Jane) or old men shattered with disease and decrepitude (Jarava Jarjara Dehe) all go on praying in union for more and more time. If only we could build up a mental frame to meet the end with equannmity, ours would have been altogether a different World.

(3.) BUT Law cannot afford to be either romantic or philosophic, and cannot but be pragmatic and has had to provide that, however desirable the contrary might be, a right or privilege or benefit may not be available after certain age. For example. Laws have had to provide that in respect of service under the government one cannot come in before and also stay on after certain age.