Skip to content


Government Medical Store Depot, Karnal Vs. State of Haryana and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal Nos. 1331-1335 of 1972
Judge
Reported inAIR1977SC2028; (1977)4SCC602c
AppellantGovernment Medical Store Depot, Karnal
RespondentState of Haryana and anr.
Excerpt:
.....with under s. 57 of the act may be directed to remove himself altogether outside the limits of the state of bombay as the act extends to the whole of the state, because, unless the person makes himself so obnoxious as to render his presence in every part of the state a menace to public peace and safety, every district authority would not think of acting in the same way in respect of the same person. (3)it cannot be laid down as a universal rule that unless there isa provision for an advisory board which could scrutinise the material on which the officers or authority contemplated by s. 57 had taken action against a person, such a legislation would be unconstitutional. (4) the provisions in ss. 55, 56, 57 and 59 of the act are not invalid on the ground that only the general nature of the..........not necessary for us to express any opinion at this stage on6. we are of opinion that the question which was raised in the high court has to be decided by the high court. the judgment of the high court is set aside. these matters are sent back to the high court to be decided in accordance with law.7. parties state before us that it is an old dispute and further that the amount involved is large.8. it is also desirable to point out that because of the delay and large ness of the amount in question the high court will dispose of the matters within six months.9. parties will pay and bear their own costs.
Judgment:

A.N. Ray, C.J.

1. These appeals are by certificate from the Judgment dated 18th May 1971 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

2. The dispute between the parties was whether the Medical Store Depot. of the Union is a dealer with in the meaning of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The Union contended that the Depot. is not a dealer. The State on the other hand contended that the Depot. is a dealer within the meaning of the State Act.

3. The High Court came to the conclusion that the petitions were not maintainable by reason of Article 131 of the Constitution.

4. Both Counsel state before us that the parties never raised any question as to Article 131 in the High Court. They further state that the question in issue does not fall within Article 131 of the Constitution but would turn on the provisions of the. State Act.

5. It is not necessary for us to express any opinion at this stage on

6. We are of opinion that the question which was raised in the High Court has to be decided by the High Court. The Judgment of the High Court is set aside. These matters are sent back to the High Court to be decided in accordance with law.

7. Parties state before us that it is an old dispute and further that the amount involved is large.

8. It is also desirable to point out that because of the delay and large ness of the amount in question the High Court will dispose of the matters within six months.

9. Parties will pay and bear their own costs.


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