REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

NANI GOPAL PAUL Appellant

V/S

STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

POWELL V. APOLLO CANDLE CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR ONTARIO V. ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE DOMINION [REFERRED TO]
ROBERTS V. HOPWOOD [REFERRED TO]
POWELL V. KEMPTON PARK RACE COURSE CO. [REFERRED TO]
LIVERSIDGE V. ANDERSON [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF TORANTO V. VIRGO [REFERRED TO]
COMMONWELTH OF AUSTRALIA V. BANK OF NEW SOUTH WALES [REFERRED TO]
HUGHES AND VALE PROPRIETARY LTD V. STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATED PROVINCIAL PICTURE HOUSES LTD. V. WEDNESBURG CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
RIDGE V. BALDWIN [REFERRED TO]
ROSS CLUNIS V. PAPADOPOULLOS [REFERRED TO]
KING EMPEROR V. SHIBNATH BANERJEE [REFERRED TO]
TIRTHALAL DE V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
HIRALAL SHAH V. COMMR OF POLICE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BOMBAY V. F.N.BALSARA [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD YASIN VS. TOWN AREA COMMITTES JALALABAD [REFERRED TO]
POOVERJEE B BHARUCHA VS. EXCISE COMMISSIONER AND THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER AJMER [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BOMBAY VS. R M D CHI MARBAUGWALA ADVOCATE GENERAL OF MYSORE INTERVENER [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ATIABARI TEA CO LIMITED KHAYERBARI TEA CO LIMITED H P BARUA HASIMARA TEA COMPANY LIMITED MOABUND TEA COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF ASSAM:STATE OF ASSAM:STATE OF ASSAM:STATE OF ASSAM:STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL KADIR SHAMSUDDIN BUBERE VS. MADHAV PRABHAKAR OAK [REFERRED TO]
FIRM A T B MEHTAB MAJID AND CO A ABDUL SHAKOOR VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
KHYERBARI TEA CO LIMITED KHYERBARI TEA CO LIMITED VS. STATE OF ASSAM:DESSAI AND PARBUTTIA TEA CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
SHOBHA VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
SWAP AN RAY CHAUDHURI VS. KHAGENDRA NATH SEN [REFERRED TO]
NEW CENTRAL JUTE MILLS CO LTD VS. DEPUTY SECRETARY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In exercise of the powers under Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules 1962, the Governor of West Bengal made an order known as the "West Bengal Chhana Sweets Control Order 1965" (hereinafter referred to as the Control Order). The object of the control order is, as stated in the preamble, the maintenance of supplies and equitable distribution of milk. The order was published in an Extra-ordinary issue of the Calcutta Gazette, on August 23, 1965, and three days thereafter the petitioner disputed the validity of the order and obtained this Rule.

(2.) It is necessary for me to notice the relevant provisions of the Control Order at this stage. Clause (2) of the Control Order is the definition clause. Under Clause 2(b), "Chhana means a product obtained through coagulation of milk followed by draining off the whey." Under Clause 2(c)

(3.) The petitioner says that he carries on business as a producer and dealer of sweets, inter alia, Chhana sweets, under the name and style of "Mukho Misti", and as such is the owner of a manufacturing establishment within the meaning of the Control Order. He feels that the Control Order imposes prohibition, alternatively unreasonable restriction, on his freedom of trade and contravenes Article 301 of the Constitution. He further feels that the Control Order does not fall within the four corners of the Defence of India Act and the Rules thereunder framed and is ultra vires Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 125, under which the Order was purportedly made. He also feels that the Control Order is arbitrary and was promulgated in misuse of power and in abuse of discretion. By a letter, dated August 24, 1965, the Solicitor for the petitioner called upon respondents to cancel, withdraw or set aside the Control Order bill nothing was done by the respondents.

Click here to view full judgment.

NANI GOPAL PAUL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address