Skip to content


Bahali Ram Rattan Lal Vs. the Additional Secretary to the Government of India and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Writ Petition No. 1971 of 1976
Judge
Reported in1984(3)ECC83
AppellantBahali Ram Rattan Lal
RespondentThe Additional Secretary to the Government of India and ors.
DispositionPetition allowed
Cases ReferredB. Narasimhalu Chettiar v. The Central Government
Excerpt:
.....thus,. in cases where the state or regional transport authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. - narasimhalu chettiar's case air 1976 mad 224, i hold the rule as it stood prior to its amendment to be bad in law and as a natural consequence of that, set aside the impugned orders, annexures p-3, p-4 and p-7. 3. thus this petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above with no order as to costs......rule 3(ee) of the gold control (licensing of dealers) rules, 1969. the orders passed to the above-noted effect by the licensing, appellate and revisional authorities are annexures p-3, p-4 and p-7, respectively. the last order, annexure p-7, was passed on november 20, 1975. 2. one of the challenges to these orders is on the basis that the above-noted rule 3(ee), as it stood prior to its amendment with effect from december 31, 1975, was unconstitutional being discriminatory and arbitrary as it laid down no guidelines for the exercise of the power vested in the authorities by virtue of this rule. in support of this stand of his, the learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice a judgment of the madras high court in b. narasimhalu chettiar v. the central government air 1976.....
Judgment:

I.S. Tiwana, J.

1. The petitioner, who is a goldsmith and was a licensee under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, and the Rules framed thereunder, impugns the action of the respondent-authorities in cancelling his licence in exercise of their powers under Rule 3(ee) of the Gold Control (Licensing of Dealers) Rules, 1969. The orders passed to the above-noted effect by the licensing, appellate and revisional authorities are annexures P-3, P-4 and P-7, respectively. The last order, annexure P-7, was passed on November 20, 1975.

2. One of the challenges to these orders is on the basis that the above-noted Rule 3(ee), as it stood prior to its amendment with effect from December 31, 1975, was unconstitutional being discriminatory and arbitrary as it laid down no guidelines for the exercise of the power vested in the authorities by virtue of this rule. In support of this stand of his, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice a judgment of the Madras High Court in B. Narasimhalu Chettiar v. The Central Government AIR 1976 Mad. 224, wherein the above noted rule was struck down for the above-noted reason. As already pointed out, with effect from December 31,1975, this rule has been amended. Following the above-noted judgment in B. Narasimhalu Chettiar's case AIR 1976 Mad 224, I hold the rule as it stood prior to its amendment to be bad in law and as a natural consequence of that, set aside the impugned orders, annexures P-3, P-4 and P-7.

3. Thus this petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above with no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //