MADANLAL KAPUR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two applications by Madanlal Kapur under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, one of them is directed against the District Magistrate of Kotah and others, and the other against the District Magistrate of Jaipur.

(2.) THE facts leading to both these applications are to a very large extent similar and this is why we are disposing them together by one judgment.

(3.) IN -- 'tozammal v. Joint Secy, to the Government of West Bengal', (B), it has been observed as given below: " On an examination of the relevant provisions of the impugned Act it is patent that the legislature has merely made provisions authorising certain officials to restrict the movement of the person concerned. There is no provision or indication as to how and if at all, the person affected may take necessary steps for having the order passed on him reviewed. The fact that an aggrieved person may move the court under Article 226 of the Constitution will not in our opinion be sufficient to regard provisions restricting fundamental rights being reasonable. The restrictive provision itself should prima facie indicate whether such restriction is reasonable or not. The absence of the particular provision pr other may not be sufficient to declare whether a provision restricting the liberty of movement is reasonable or otherwise. We have to consider all the points taken together and assess the cumulative effect of all those particulars". Further on, in the same judgment it has been observed as follows: The right of hearing before condemnation is admitted to be a component of the rights which taken together constitute rights of natural justice, though that does not mean that an interim ex pane order cannot be passed restricting the movements of a person. But unless he is given an opportunity of being heard by a property constituted body even after such an interim order, the order restricting the fundamental rights must be declared to be unreasonable".