Skip to content


Murlidhar Ishwar Das Vs. State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1628 of 1975
Judge
Reported in1983WLN(UC)535
AppellantMurlidhar Ishwar Das
RespondentState of Rajasthan
Cases ReferredSohan Lal Loonkaran v. State of Rajasthan
Excerpt:
.....with the prior concurrence of the central government, the notification is void ab initio and any notification issued on the basis of that power cannot be sustained.;the charge-sheet which was issued on the basis of the void order cannot be sustained.;rule made absolute - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a..........of the petitioner. but be that as it may i am not concerned with the finding on this issue at all because this point stands concluded by the judgment of this court reported in sohan lal loonkaran v. state of rajasthan 1975 rlw 199 by mr. justice lodha. his lordship has held that as the notification dated 18-6-1966 was not with the prior concurrence of the central government, the notification is void ab initio and any notification issued on the basis of that power cannot be sustained and must be set aside, which i hereby do.2. in the result, the charge sheet which was issued on the basis of the void order cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. it appears, by the interim order of this court, the goods were not allowed to be confiscated and were returned to the petitioner. that order.....
Judgment:

P.K. Banerjee, C.J.

1. In this rule, the petitioner challenges the proceedings taken under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with notification of Central Government vide S.O. No. 1844 dated 18-6-66 and notification dated 8-12-1971 published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 11-12-71, by which it is incumbent on the part of the dealers of the petrolieum product to display the particulars of stock of the commodities at the relevant time. Admittedly, the petitioner had 5000 litres of mobil oil, which was, however, not meant for stock at Jodhpur, but was on way to Alwar and because of the flood situation there, could not be transported. In that view of the matter, it appears prima facie, that the stock was not of the petitioner. But be that as it may I am not concerned with the finding on this issue at all because this point stands concluded by the judgment of this Court reported in Sohan Lal Loonkaran v. State of Rajasthan 1975 RLW 199 by Mr. Justice Lodha. His lordship has held that as the notification dated 18-6-1966 was not with the prior concurrence of the Central Government, the notification is void ab initio and any notification issued on the basis of that power cannot be sustained and must be set aside, which I hereby do.

2. In the result, the charge sheet which was issued on the basis of the void order cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. It appears, by the interim order of this Court, the goods were not allowed to be confiscated and were returned to the petitioner. That order stands. The order of confiscation is set aside and the security furnished is dissolved. The rule is made absolute as indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.


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