Jagan Nath and Sons and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors. - Court Judgment
|Court||Punjab and Haryana High Court|
|Case Number||Civil Writ No. 6514 of 1975|
|Judge|| S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.,; S.C. Mital and; Harbans Lal, JJ.|
|Reported in||AIR1979P& H205|
|Acts||Constitution of India - Articles 19 and 358|
|Appellant||Jagan Nath and Sons and ors.|
|Respondent||Union of India and ors.|
|Cases Referred||Partap Singh Kadian v. State of Punjab|
.....prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed..........doubt expressed by the counsel regarding the correctness of the division bench judgment in partap singh kadian v. state of punjab, air 1975 punj and har 324 had necessitated the admission of this writ petition for a hearing by the full bench way back an the 12th of dec., 1975. 2. in partap singh kadian's case (supra) inter alia it has been authoritatively held that art. 358 is prospective and applies to fresh legislation enacted by the state during the emergency. however, it does not apply to pre-emergency legislation, which therefore, could be subjected to a challenge under article 19 of the constitution of india even during the continuance of the emergency. the proclamation of emergency having now been revoked, learned counsel for the parties are rightly agreed that application of the.....
S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.
1. A vacillating doubt expressed by the counsel regarding the correctness of the Division Bench judgment in Partap Singh Kadian v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 Punj and Har 324 had necessitated the admission of this writ petition for a hearing by the Full Bench way back an the 12th of Dec., 1975.
2. In Partap Singh Kadian's case (supra) inter alia it has been authoritatively held that Art. 358 is prospective and applies to fresh legislation enacted by the State during the Emergency. However, it does not apply to pre-Emergency legislation, which therefore, could be subjected to a challenge under Article 19 of the Constitution of India even during the continuance of the Emergency. The proclamation of Emergency having now been revoked, learned counsel for the parties are rightly agreed that application of the ratio of Partap Singh Kadian's case (supra) does not now even remotely arise. This apart no criticism whatsoever to the reasoning, rationale and the view expressed in Partap Singh Kadian's case has been made at the Bar. Counsel are, therefore, agreed that the only reason for which the case was directed to be heard by a Full Bench no longer subsists.
3. We, therefore direct that this writ petition be placed before a Single Bench or disposal on merits.
4. Order accordingly.