.. [D, .A. DESAI, AMARENDRA NATH SEN AND R. B. MISRA, JJ.].

Defen<e of Indid Rules,

1962. Rules j15 and . 125A Sutor Mill Ciosed-Order of Central Gov(3rnmenr taking over Managemet-Authorisd control/er appointed order of Central GoVernm, nt-Whethei valid. . ' . ·- . .

WOrds & Phrases: 1Undertaking'-'Engaged_ inthe product{on of'- Meanint of-Rule 125A Defence of Indian Rules, 1962. . - .

E •

The management of the Suar Mill of th.e. Appellant was tal<en over under Rule 125 of the l>efence of India Rules 1962 and an Authorised _Con• !roller was appointed • . 1nthe appeal by certificate to this Court, it was .contended on behalf _ pf the Appellant that long before passing.of the order and even before sugar was decl, ared to be an essential. commodity; the appellant bad, completely .F stopped the. rUnning of the Mill with no intent{on to starfit again, there_was, therefore, no undertaking within the me&ning of Rule 125.A and the ordr passed under Rule 125A whicb was not attracted mu't. be held to 1"', bad ai; id inv31id.

_ .• on behalf o.f the Union of India, it was contended that Rule 12SA G confers juisdiction and authority to_ pass. ao order eveo in respect of.an undertaking cloSed and int.ended to be permallently shut own.

Dismissing the app~1,

' HELD: the taking over of the manag<m<nt Of the sugar mill of the appellant and the appointment cf the aU1hcri<Cd contrclkr "ere perfectly valid and lawful and. the act dote by iheauthorim! contro!Juin tecours~ of roantiiement is bindill\l op the app~)lant• (SS3Al ·

y '.

'\'.D. JHUNJHUNWALA V. UNION 531

2. Although Ru)e 125 confers very wide powers for genbral controi of an undertaking, there is no provision in .the said ruie to ta.ke over the management of any_ underta\ing. Rule: 12.SA by way of amendment was; therefore. inserted to confer further power of taking over the ruanag{tn<nt of-partculr undertakings and of appointing authorised controllers for running such undertakings. [541G, 542AJ

3. Rule 125A makes it clear that the rule was not intended to apply to each and every undettaing within the meaning of Rule 125. Speciitl provision. is. P, ade i.n ule 125A i0' respect of particular undertakings only.

Rule 125A describes and particularises the undertakings to which this rule will be applicabie. [542B] ·

4. 1'.he provision in Rule 12SA that "in this rule unless the context -.otherwise requires, an •undertaking' means any undertaking (includfJg an

underiaking vested ill or contro1led or managed by, a lcicalauthority) which is , engaged in--_;,, is merely descriptive ofte undertaking to_ which this rule is applica, b1e. The words "which is engaged in the production" . merely

D : i:Iescribes. the .kind Of und.ertakinS .by referring to _the nature of the activity qf the -Undert.akirig for bringing it within the purview of Rule 12SA and they hav'e no be>-ar-ing on the question. hether the activities. are in the prOcess of being carried on or have been stopped. The expression any undertaking whi, ch

is 'engaged in' has been used to d..escribe the nature of business of the undf; rt<iking and is m:rely descriptive of the undertaking w which t.kis rule willapply. [542C-EJ · E

. CIVIL APPELl\A.TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 481 9f 1971.

From the Judgment and Decree dated the 22nd Deci:_mber, F' 1969 of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 210 of 1967 ..

S.T. Desai and H.S. Parihar for the Appellant.

Harbans Lal, Miss A. Subhashini and V, B, SDharya for the Respondent.

. Mrs. Shobha Dikshit fqr Respondent. No. 3.

The Judgment of t)le Cort was deliveed ~

E·

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984) 3 s.c.R.

. .

AMARENDRA NATH Sm, J.

Whether the order of the Central oovernment taking, over the management of t)\e Sugar Mill of the Appellant. under Rule 125A of the Defence of India Rule;; and appointing an authorised Controller of the .said Mill thereunder is valld, is the principal question which falls for determination in this appeal by certificate.

The main contention of Mr. S. T, Deasi, learned Counsel for the appellant, is that .on a proper construction of Rule l 25A of the Defence of.Indi~ Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) . the o.rder taking over the management of the Sugar Mill under this rule is invalid, as on the date ofthe order the Sugar Mili was · closed .and the appellant had.no intention ofre-op<!ning the snme.

It has not .been dispnted that if the order of the take. over of. the

manaeme!lt is held. to be valid the appellent will not be entitled to any relief and the appeal must fail. . .

We may observe that the question whether the Mill was closed or n.ot on the date the order taking over the management and appointing an authorised Controller under Rule 125 was passe<l, is in serious dispute.

However; for the purpose of <leciding the question raised in this appeal it does not become necessary . . . to go Jnto any dispute with regard to the. facts.

We propose to. proceed on the basis that the Mill haq remained closed and the appellant had shut it down permanently on the date the order came' to be passed, as, in our opinion, the order in .question, even. if the same be held to have been passed at the time when the Mill was lying so closed, must be held to be . perfectly vaild on a proper interpretation of Rule 125A As.in out opinion, on a propr interpretation of R.ule 125A, the -order.in question is lawfuland justified even if we accept the submission of Mr. Desai that the Mill was fatually s9 closed, it does not becon1e necessary for us to advert to the facts of this particular case. The real question is one of interpretation of Ru1e 125A.

Rule 125A was introduced by an amendment and inserted by a. S. R. 1813 dated 28ih December, 1962.

The provisions of this Rule relevant for the purpose of thjs appeai are .contained in sub• rules 0) and (2) which provide as follows :-

"125A '(!).

In this rule. unless the contellt otherwise requires, 'undertaking' means- .

- . . . (a) any undertaking (including an unertaking vested ip1

, k i

V.D. lHUNJf!liNWALA v, UNION (t!..N. Sen, J.) 533

or con.trolled or managed by, a local ulhor, ity) which is engaged in the production, generation, supply,· distribution 0r provision pf water, transport, fuel,. lighi electricity or other power, ot any other thing or service which is notified by the Government as .. . essential to the life of the community ;

(b) any system of public conservancy and sanitation and any hospital or dispensary ; •

and also includes an.Y part or . property of an . c undertaking.

 (2) If. it appears . to the C.entral Government or the State Government that for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community, it is necessary to tak.e over. the managcinent of any .undertaking, .that Government may, by notified order, authoi:ise any . . . p¢rson or body of persons to take over the management of any undertaking specified in the order and thereupon such undertaking shall be manageo in accordance with the provisions of that order ;

Provided that powers UJlder this sub-rule shall he exercised by the State Government in respect of a. company to which the Comp<tnies Act 1956 applies .

. Mr. Desai referring to sub-rule (I) (a) ofRule 125A of the.

I!' Rules has argued that the Mill of the Appellant was not an undertaking within the meaning of this Rule, as the Mill on the date of the order was not engaged in .. production, generation, supply,

distribupn, or provision of water, transport, fuel, light, elect(icity or other power or any other thing or service which is notified by the Government as esse.ntial to the life of the community because the Mill bad been lying closed. It is his argument that an order under Rule 125A ca.n only be validly passed in respect of an under• . takin~ within the meaning of the Rule and in terms of the definition of 'undertaking' in the rule, an undertaking to which this rule may apply, must be one which is .engaged in the production,

g:nertifln, supp!y: distribution or provision of water, transport, fuel, hght, electnc1ty or other power or an}' other thing or service

~ .. .

. A.

c, D.

5~4 SUPRl!ME COtJRt REPORtS [1984]3 s, c.R.:

which is notified by the Government as essntial to the life of the community. He contends that the Mill had been closed and had not been fUnctioning and therefore, the. Min was not engaged in the production, generation, supply or distribution oL any sugar or ·

any other .thing or service essent_ial_ to the life of the coinmunity.

It is his contention .that as the _appellant had !OJ]~ before the pas-. sing of the order and even before sugar was declared to be iln essential co:nmodity. completely_ stopped th.e running of the Mill . witQ.: .no intention to start it again, the. Mill had ceased to be engaged in the manufacture or production of sugar and there was •therefore, no undertaking within the meaning of Rule 125A and. the order passed under Rule 125A which was not attracted must . be held. to be. bad and invalid. He has submitte<; l that an. order

under Rule 125A call only be• passed in respect of an undertakig which is actually engaged in 'the activ.ity of production 'at the time the order is passed; In support of the submissions made-, Mr.

Desai has' referred to :the decision of this Court in R. C Cooper v.

Union of India"l and also !o the decision of the Delhi High Court 'in the case of , National Projects Constructio11 Corporation Ltd.v. · Cinnmissioner of Wealth Tax. Delhi"'.

On behalf of the. Union: of India, it has been submitted that stoppage of production and non-fonctioning of the Mill even with ·

an intent to close it down permneritly does not, _in any way, affect the power to take over. the_ management under Rule J25A and thejurisdiction and authority to pass an order even in respect of an undertaking cloed and intended to be permanently shut down" can validly be exercised under rule 125A. The submission is that merely because an undertaking has been shut down with no intention of being. reopened ii will not on that ground only cease .to be an undertaking wiihin the meaning of the rule,· The learned counsel argues that for a proper appreciation of the (rue import and meaning of the word 'undertaking' and for under§ianding the true. scope and effect of rule l2SA, it is necessary to refer to rule-

125. It is his argument that in the light of the provision contained in rule 125, rule 125A which was introduced by way of amendment to confer' further power of take. over _of ihe management of an undertaking will have to be understood anq construed ; anti on. proper interpretation it is clear that fa the larger public interest,

(l} [19701 3 S. C. R. 530

(2) [1969] 74 I. T. R. 4'65 .

. .,

. I

~- •••

.. ..

.. .

. -.

' -

' -._.

v:o. ; fiuii1IluNWALA v~ UNION (A.N. Sen, J.) · 535

 . . ·. : .· • f . d . . d. . ule !25A can undoubt- A the power and authority con erre un er r .. . . . , . 'edly be exercised in respect of an undertaking which, may not be . functlonin.a and may have even been closed with intent•. of not

' ' - 0 . • . . ··, :

reopening the same;. ·

• •

. . ' . . . . The relevant proviSions of rule 125 read :-

" 125. General control of indusiry, etc . ..::(!) rule, unless the ontext otherwise requires,~.. .

Io this

(a) ~~Y reference to ay artile or thing shall be const-

. rued .as including a reference to electricai energy ; ·

:' _-.. ·

(b) the . exprssion 'undertakiiis mean's any undertaking

 : by way of any industry~ trade or business and includes.

, the occupation of hanJ!ing, loading or unloading Of . gcicidsio the course. f trasport, · ·

(:l) If the C.entral Gvernmnt (; r the . State Gi1ver.n" ment is of.opinion . that it is necessary or expedient so to . -do for securing the defence. of• India and civil defence,.· . 'the efficient conduct of military operations or the mainte- . . nance or. increase of supPlies . and services ssential to the Ufe of the community or for securing.: the equitable distribution and availability of any article or thing ai, fair .prices, . it may;. by 'order, provid~ for regulating or prohibiting the production, manufacture, supply and distribution, use and consumption of articles 'or thing and. trade . and . comineri:e therei.n or . for. preventing any corrupt paictke of abuse of authority ln respect of. any such .matter;. ·

c '

,. -·,

.• .F

(3) Without. prejudice . to the generality of the . powers tonferred by 'sub' rule. (2); an order made there~

. G under my provide' . ..

(a) . for regulating' by iicences, . permits or otherwiSe the

the :production, manufacture,: treatment;': keeping •. st9rage; movement; transport, '.distribution, disposal; . acquisition/ use or consumption ofarticles or things

of any description whatsoever ~: · ·

. •.· ..

.• H

, I

. 536.

SUPR, EME COURr REPORTS

(1984] 3 S.C.R •

(aa) for regulating o.r prohibiting any. class of commercial or financial transactions. iri respect of any artiC!e or thing which in the opinion of the Government are, or, if not regulated or prohibited, are likely to be, detrimental to any of the purposes specified.in subrule (2). ·

(b) . for prohibiting the. with holding from sale, either generally or to specified persons 'or clilsses of persons, of articles or things ordinarily kept for sale and for requiring articles or things ordinarily kept for sale to be sold either generally or to specified persons or class. or classes of persons or in specified circumstances ;

(c) for requiring any perspn holding in tock any article or thing to sell !he whole or a specified part of the stock to the Government or to an officer or agent of the Government . or to such other person. or class .or classess of persons and in such circumstances as may be specified in the order and if the 'order relates to food-grains, at such prices.as. may be' specified in the order having ri;.gard to ;-

(i) the maximum price, if any, fixed by order under clause (e) or by or under any other law for the time being in force,· for the grade or variety of food-grains to which the order this clause

(ii)

applies ; and ·

the price: for that grade or variety of foodgrains prevailing or likely . to prevail during the post. harvest period. in the. area to Which the order applies ;

(d) for securipg. the production or manufacture of specified articles. or things in specified quantities and for

effecting modification in the pattern of production .or manufacture of.su'ch article_s or things ;

. (dd) for securing the production, manufacture supply or

sale according to the prescribed standards" and. speci- . fications, of any article or thing appearing to .the . Government essential to any of the purposes specified in sub-rule (2) ; ·

.· "- •

' '

. ..,.

V.D. JHUNJJIUNWALA v. UNION (A.N. Sen, J.)' 531

(ddd) for the minimum and maximum stock of any article

or thing appearing to the Government essential to any the pur-poses specified in sub-rule (2),, to be held by any . consumer or by any producer, manufcturer, distributor, dealer or.other person;

 (e) for controlling the prices or rates at which articles

QT things of any description whatsoever may be sold or hired or for relaxing any maximum or minimum limits otherw'ise imposed on such prices or rates;

(() for controlling the rates at . which any vessel registered in India may be hired and the rates at which C. persons or goods may be carried in or on any such vessel ;

(g) for requiring any employers or class or classes of employers to suppli to all or any class of their employees or to any class of dependants of such employees such articles or things in such quantities £nd at such price as may be specified in the order and to provide such accommodation and other • facilities for taking meals at or near. the place of employment as may be so .specified ;

(h) for controlling the recruitment and employment of labour in such areas as may be specified in the ord.er with a view to seuring that efficient workers are available for undertakings which, .in the opinion of the Government, are essential undertakings ;

(i) for regulating the carrying . on of any undertaking engaged in or capable of doing, work appearing to the Government essential to any of the above men- . tioned purposes, and, in particular :

(i) for requiiing work to be done by ari under

taking ; • G

(ii) for determining the ordr of priority in which, and the period or periods within which work shall be done by an undertaking ; ·

(iii) for controlling or fixing the charges which may be made by undertaking in respect of .the doing of any work by it ;

- •

53s

• A

• D

; H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 s.c.R. ~- "'

(iv) for requiring, regulating or prohibiting the engageroent in the undertaking of any employees or class or classes of employees ; •· ..

. (v) for requiring the undertaking io provide adequate safeguards against sabotage ;

(j) for requiring rersons .engagep in the production, manufacture, supply or distribution of or trade and commerce in any article or thing, to maintail) and produce for inspection sµch . books, accounts and records relating . to. their bussiness and to . furnish such inforroation relating thereto and to .employ such accounting and auditing staff as may be specified in the order;

{k) for collecting any informatio_n or ·.statistics with a view to regulating or prohibiting any of the aforesaid matters ;

(i) for requiring persons carrying on any Int!ustry, trade

. r+

-or business or employed in conl)ection with any undertaking to produce to such authority as may be specified in . the order, any books, account or other documents relati"ng thereto ; and for requiring-such . persons to furnish such authority as may be specified in the. order such estimates returns or other information relating to any industry. irade or business or any undertaking .as m_ay . be specified ill the order or demanded thereunder ; ¥'"

(m) for the grant or issue of licenpes, permits or other

 documents, the charging of fees therefor, the depost of such sum; if aoy as may be specified.· in . the order as security for the due perfo)'mance of the conditions of any such lic:ence, permit or other document, "the forfeiture ., f the sum to deposited for any part ·

thereof for 'contravention of any such conditions, and the adjudication of such forfeiture by such authority

• ,.;

V.D. JHUNJHUNIYALI\ v. UNION (A.M Sen, J.) 539 " as may be specified in the order ;

* * .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • * • • • * * • •• • • • • • . * . • • • • • • .. • • • • • • • • • •

(4) Ifit appears to the Central Government or the State Government that in the interests of the defence of India and civil defence; or the efficient co_nduct of .military operations,. or for maintaining supplies and services esential to the life ofthe community, it is necessary to exercise control over the whole or any part of an existing undertaking, that Government may by order . authorise any person (hereinafter referred t'o as an auth- ·

rised controller) to exercise, with respect to the undertak ing or. any part thereof specified in the order, such. functions of control as may be provided by the order ; aad so Icing as an order made undeF this sub-rule is in force with respect to any undertaking or part of an undertaking-.· ·

(a) the authorised controller shali exercise his functions E . in accordance with any instructions given to him by. the Central Government or the State Government, s_o, however, that he shall not have power to . give any directions inconsistent with the provisions of any

ACl or other instrument determining the functioning of the undertakers except in so far as may be specifica)iy provided b.J' the order ; and

(b) the undertaking or part shall be. carried on in acco1-

'dance with any directions given by the authoiised

controller in accor.dance with the provisions of the order, and an JC person having any function of manage ment in relation to the undertaking or part shall comply with any such directions ;

(5) The Central Government, so far -as it appears to it to be necessary or expedient for securing .the defence of.

India and civil defence or the efficient conduct of military

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984 j J S.C, lt.

'A operations, or for maintaining. supplies and• services essential to the life of the community, may direct the employment of persons subject to .the Army Act, 1950 o.r . ·, the Air Force Act; 1950, or the Navy Act, 1957~ .

D ..

(a)· in any public utility service as defined in section 2 of the Indusirial Disrutes Act. 1947; or ·

(b) in any undertaking or part thereof,

(i) wl1icb is being carried on by the Central or a

State Government, or . .

(ii) • which in the opinion of the Ceniral Gvernment is engaged in any trade or business esse.ntial to , the life of the community, or

(iiii with respect to whi.ch an order made under' sub-·

rule (4) is in force. ·

~- ..

and thereupon it shall be the duty of every person so sub:. ject to obey any command given by. any superior offic.er • . in relation tci such employment •and every such command

shall be. deemed. to . be. a lawful command within the. meaning .dnd for t11e purpose of the Ar111y Act,1950, or Air Force Act, 1.950, or the Navy Act,· 1957, as the case may be. ·.>-.

(6) A direction under sub-rule (5) may be made with or without the consent of the person carrying .on the undertaking ·.or part thereof to which the direction relates but if made without his consent shall. ]?e comm uni: cated to such person who shMI thereupon be deemed to hRVC contravened an order made under this rule jf ne obstructs or fails to facilitate the employment of perons subject to the Army Act, 1950, or the Air Force Act; 1950 . or the Navy Act,.1957, in pursuance of the direction."

Sub-rule (2) of rule 125 makes it clear that for securing the defence of India and civil defence, efficient conduct of.military operations.or .the maintenance or' increase of supplies and servic.es. essential to the life ofthe community or for seeking equitaqle distri- bU:tioi1and availability of any article or thing at fair 'price, s very' . .wide powrs which are indicated in sub:section(3) without prejudice .. to the gen<; ratity of the powers conferred by this sub-section have .

. '

V.D. i!IUNl~NWALA v. UNION (A.N. Sen, J.) 541

'provided for regulatin& or prohibiting production,_ manufacture; supply and distribution, use and consumption of articles or things and trad_e ang commerce and for preventing any corrupt practlcli or abuse of authority ln .tesp.ct of any such matter. Rule 125())(b) which defines all undertaking makes it clear thar the expression 'undertaking' meaus any undertaking by way of any industry, trade or business and includes the occupation. of handling, loading or-unloading of goods in the course of transport. Sub, rule 3(i) of rule 125 makes provision for regulating the carrying on of an undertaking engaged in, . or capal)le of doing work appearing to the Government .essential to any of the purposes mentioned above in sub-rule (3) and in particular Ii) for requiring work 'to be done by an undertaking and (ii) for determining tbe order of Priority in which, and the period or periods within whiph the work shall be done by an undertaking. It has to be noted that'the expression undertaking has been given a very wide. meaning in rll!e 125(1)(b) and.is i; iot limited to any undertaking which is functioning, or is a going concern. Sub-rule 3(i) confers powers and jurisdiction for regulating the carrying on of any undertaking not only engage<! in but a!so capable or doing, work appearing to the Gqvernment essential and this provision makes this position abundantly clear, Iii the larger interest of the country a.nd particularly for the purpose specifically mentioned fo rule 125, power of general control of very wide amplitude is conferred under rule 125 and th. ere is . noth!Dg to indicate in the s!id rule that the power~ conferr~

under rule 125 cannot be exercised over any undertaking which h'as stopped functioning. Indeed; such a construction is clearly unwarranted on a plain reading_ of the section which clea:i; ly provides that such powers can be exercised not only in respect of an undertaking engaged but also capable of doing the kind 'of activity contemplated in the rule. Such a narrow construction is likely to defeat the .very purpose for which the rule has been enacted.

Although rule 125 confers very wide powers for general control of an_ undertaking, there is no provision in the said rule to take over the management of any undertaking.

Orders and directions under .rule 125 to exercise general control over an undertaking were not considered o be sufficient and the authority felt that further power to take over the management of" an undertaking in appropriate oases was necessary, when such general control may not prove effective particularly in respect of certain undertakings. Rule

J25A by way of ?mendment was, therefore, inserte\l to co!Jfer

SUPREME. COURT REPORTS

U9 84) 3 S.C.R A .

•. !!1rther power of taking over. the . mnagement of prlicular uiidr

takings and of appointing auhorised .. c0ritollers for running such undertakings .. The 'meaning of the.· •word. 'undertaking' inrule

125A has to be nnde_rstood in .this background and context .. Rule

: 125A makes it clear thafthe rule"l25A is not. intended to apply to each and every uqdertakingiwithin the m<; aning of rule 125. Special. . provision is made .in rule 125A in respect of particul.ar undertakings... ·.

Only Rule 125A describes and particularises the undertakings to . which this rule will. be applicable. Tbe proyision in this rule that ''in this rule unless the. context otherwise r; iquire~ an under-. taking' means ariy undertaking (including an un.dertaking vested in . or controlled o.r managed by, a 1.ocal authority) .. which is eng:ige_d

iii the production; generation, "supply, distribution .or provision of . water,_transfer, fuel, light, electricity or other power 'or any other

thing or.service which is notified by the Government 'as essential.to the life of the< community", is. merely .descriptive of the tlnderta: . . ing to which this rule .is applicable. The words. "which .is engagd

in the pruduction. * * *" merely describes the kind of undertaking by.referring to the. nature of. the .activity of the undertaking for : ·.bringing it within the . purview of rule. 125A and they have no ·

.bearing on the question whether. the activities ae in t!ie. process :or being carried on or have been . stor.ped. . The expression any undertaking which is. 'engaged. in' has been.used.to.describe the . nature of business of .. the undertaking and is merely descriptive of :-the undertaking to which this rule wilt'.· apply. The take over of the management. of an undertaking to which rule 125A.is _applica- . ble may become. ali the more necessary in larger public. interest

.and for effectively serVing the purposes for which this 'rule has been.

incorpo.rated; particularly when an undertaking engaged in any kind of.· activity coming within the purview . of this rule stops. functioning, to enable. tee.· undertaking to function. for achieving '>'(", the purposes for which , these provisions have been made .. The 'construction '.contended for by Mr .. Desai wiU be inconsistent with . the provisions of the rule ·:and will defeat the purposes \Vhich .. this

rule seeks to serve •.. The. decisions relied on by Mr. Desai are of ... no. assistance as the expressions 'undertaking'. and 'engaged' .. which'

•. caine to be considered in these cses, wer~ usd in different status · and jn entiely different context. . . ·

c We must, th(refote~ -hfld ttitthe td<iqg over of the manage rrent cf tl:e iug•r mi11 cf tle . app(Uel\tar.d the apoointment of

, • '.: • 4 ,,_

..+ v.D. JHUNJHUNWALA v; UNION (A.N: Sen, J.) 543

the authorised controller were perfectly valid and lawful and the A . act done by the authorised control.ler in the course of management

by virtue ofthe provl:; ions ofthese rules must be held to be bind ing on the appellant. iii<

The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

N.V.K. . Appewl dismissed,

. ''1' .

.'t • •

A. DESAI

AMARENDRA NATH SEN

R. B. MISRA, JJ.

Indid Rules

Defence of Indian Rules, 1962

India Rules 1962

Union of India

.• on behalf o.f the Union of India, it was contended that Rule 12SA G confers juisdiction and authority to pass.

S.T. Desai

H.S. Parihar

Harbans Lal

A. Subhashini

V, B, SDharya

Shobha Dikshit

AMARENDRA NATH Sm

S. T, Deasi

Desai

28ih December, 1962

N. Sen

C.entral Government

Desai

Delhi High Court

A.N. Sen

India

Central Government

Central Government

Army Act, 1950

Air Force Act

Navy Act, 1957

section 2

Air Force Act

Navy Act

Army Act, 1950

Air Force Act

Navy Act

Sen


544.

SEBASTIAN M. HONGRAY

UNION OF INDIA & ORS .. . .

Apri( 23, 1984

'[D.A.I)esAI AND 0. CIUNNAPPA REDDY, JJ.]

. . .

 Writ :of Habeas Corpus served on Respondent3 dire.ctlg 1hem to produce_

te t_wo _nanted per.ons-Re.\pondent.i.fail to file .a return bpt exPtdin the reaS<ilt.<J for not producing 1hem-Appropd'ate mr.uf.e of_e-nforci'ng _abedience to a Writ of Habeas Co1pus, explained-Contempt of <..1ourt A_ct, .]971 Sections 2 (a) a1id ·. J (b} Hciv(l onte1npt" and wilful. di obedience~', explained Examplary Cost by way of Compensation ordered under Ru/eh of order KLVII oj Supreme , Court Rules, 1966. · ··

O.n Novmber 24, 1983, the Court by its iudgmen t and .order directed that writ of Habeas Corpus be issued-Though the 1st, 2nd and 4th tesponderJs°"e.re served, .they failed to file.a-re.turn to the _Writ. However 8.re, urn on affidavif by one Aja.i Vikram Singh Dirctor, .Ministry of Defence was filed on 12.12.1983 expr.essing their inability to produ.ce the two nS:t'ned officets duo to circutristance! be}tond their control arid thCir failure tO trace the~ ev.en with. the. assistance of. Cent.raI Bureau of Jiives tigati<i.J.

This was supported by a copy of the report by the Dy. Inspector GeneraJ-0f i'olice (s) .

. Making the Rule absolute .the Court,

.HELD :i. 10 complianc~ whb thC mandatory direction contained ii:t the Writ of Habeas Corpus, the pers.on to whom itis dir"eced is .under a legal .obiigation to produce 1be body cif the. person alleged to be l!nlawfully detained.before the Court on the day specified and to mak~ a form.al returri to the wri.t.

Here, uch a Writ' has been issued.and there.bas be"en fi!Ure to p'rodu-; e the .missing persons in respect of whoni _writ. js isstieid and to file the re.tur.n as mandated by law. [547B.F] . · ·

.z:l 'fh"e Contempt ·or Courts Act,. 19·11 define_s , colltmpt of court•. i.n Sec. 2(a) io mell 'civil contempt ot criminal.con.teinpt'. 'Civil Contept' is_-defined in Sec. 2(b) to mean. wilful disobed_ience: t.o. any judgment decree~ direction, order, .writ or ot.her. process ()fa Court or wilful breach .. of.an undert.aking .. given to a c.ourt' .. Wilful .disObedince .. to awr.it issud by tne Court constitutes civil conte'!'pt. [547H; .548A]

2:2 Mere failure to obey th_e Writ inay not.constitut.e civil contempt depending upOn th_e facts and circumStanCes Of.the Case. Bt1t wllful disobe .. dierice-to a writ issµed -by fl. Court constitute~ .. civil .contem.pt.

Again it is wen-Settled that tbeappropriate mode .of cnfd"rciflg obeditnce :t.o a writ of

ln\be~S COtPll;, is by. om, mitt~J for ontempt.

A, COffili\itt~\ O(der mari?~ •

' r-.· •

) ..

• •

• r

s. M. HONGRAY v. UNiON 545

t-i:made ·agl1inst a person 'Who inteniionally makes a false return to a writ <'l(

habea!" corpu~ but an unintentional misrepresentation an a return is not a grouo4 for committal. [S4~BC]

2:3 The-- view of ibis Court as expressed ip the .main judgment 'clelrly indicates that \he assertion of respondents I. 2 and'4 that C. Daniel

" .

and C. Paul left P.hungref camp where 21st . Sikh Regiment were stationed B is not correct and that to avoid _responsibility flowing from the -mysterious dH;&j)pearance of C. Daniel and C. Paul an -atteµipt as mad¢ to .suggest that they .bad left alive , in the COIT\pany of their compatriots. On that con-clusion one can say that 1:here is a wilful OisobedieOce to the writ _or ·:tflabeas corps by misteadillg the court by pr~.seDfing a djstortcd versio11.of facts not qorne out by the rec.ord .. It is thqs established. that th~ respondents

t, 2 and 4 have committed civil .contempt by .their wilful disobedience to

.. C the writ. [548DE]

3: 2 In the facts and circumstances of the ca.se, eeping in view the

;;- t<irture,· the agqny and the mental oppression throu8; h which Mrs. C.

Thingkhuiia, wife o(Sbri C. Daniel and Mri .. C. Vangamla, wife of Shri \- C. Palil had to pa'.ss and they being the -proper applicants, the f'oxma(

application :bein'g by Sebastibn M. Hongray> the c_ourt considered ·t. proper "' and directed that as a measure of exempla.rJtt costs as is perniisible in such , cases,· resPoodents Nos. 1 (lnd :i -shalT pay Rs. 1 lac to each of the afore .. mentioned two women ); Vithin a period of four weeks frQD) April 23, 1984. . . . .

. [5480-H; S49A) . . .

4. Further adjourning the matter to enable.the resp0ndcntsto trace 'or locate the tWo missing. pt; rsons is to shut the e¥es to\tl?e reality and to

pcrsue a mirr.ge.

The two officers have not met their:. tragic end in an F

eDounter as is usually claimed and the only pos'.iiblc inference that can be drawn from circUmsraoce of the case is that both ofthe_ll1 m_ust have met ,--ari unnatural death. Prima facie, it W(luld be a_o offence of murder. Who Is

'fildividuallYor collectively the Purpetrator'of the crime of is responsible ) , Jfo:t: their c; Jilappearance will h_ave .. to be"· determined by a proper, thorough ?•·and r~SP, onSible police , investigation.

It is nt necessary to .start -casting a lloubt on anyone or any particular perspn. But p•ima facie there is material G On record .. to reach an affirmative conclusion that botb Sbri c ... DaBiel and 'Sltri C. Paul are' not alive and have met .an uQnatutal _-death. And the

tJfiion of In.dia cannot disown the responsibility in this behalf. [S49B•E] . \ - - '

. " (Tho Court is; uod a writ of madamus to th6'!ll1!Jerintedent' of Po.lice, 1Ukbml, Manipur S1ate to.tfC.at ELll the p_apers.in the Writ of Habeat1 Corpus -'as:""'informS:tion of a cognizable offence aqd to commence inve'.stiga_tion as" ff

0 preacrlbed by jb~ relev~t provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedur~) . , . .

. [S49E-F]

j .. •

•'546

SUPRllMll COURT REPORTS [1984] 3 s.C.\l.

c ' 0RIGiN>.L JuR1so1c110N : Writ Petition (Criminal) No.148. of 19~3.

. B

.(Under article' 32 of the Constition of India)

.Ms. Nandita Hak!iar and C.S. Vaidyqnatha11 for the Petitioner.

Ms: A. Subhashini for Respondent . . '

Mrs. Urwitla Kapoor for Respondent.

,. V.C. Mahaj4n, P.N. Purl S.K. Mehta and Balbir Singh Shant for Respondent. · ,

' ' The Judgment of the Courl was delivered by

DESAI, J. 0n Nov. 24, 1983, the Court by its. Judgment and order directed that a writ of habeas corpus 'be issued, The qperative portion Of the order reatls as under : . . . , .

#'Accordingly, this petition is allowed and we direct that a writ of habeas corpas be iss11ed to theresp<)ndents I, 2 nd 41:ommanding them to produce C. Daniel, 'retired Naik Subedar of Manipur Rifles and Headmaster Of the Junior High School of I; fuining Village and C. Paul, Assista'Jlt Pastor ofHuin'g Baptist hurch, who wre taken to Phurtgrei Camp by the jawans of 21st Sikh Regiment. on March' 10, 1982 before this Court on Dec. 12, 1983 and file the return.'' • •

'i'he R-egistry issued the wdt nd served the same upon first, respondent-Union of India, second respondent-Secretary, Ministry ofHc>nie Affairs and 4th 'respondentcomma'ndant, 21st S.ikh Regi- . ment, Phungrei Calilp. Pursuant to the writ, it was obligatory

11pon respondents I, 2 and 4 to file the return and' to produce C; Daniel and c .. Paul. A retµrnon affidavit by one Ajai Vikram Singh, Director, Ministry of Defence dated December 9,, 1983 was produced in the Court on December 12, 19S3. stating therein "that with all the will and the best efforts, th.e resp~>ndents are Unl)ble to produce S/Shri C. Daniel and C. Pail! for the reasons set out in • \. . . the affidavit and crave for indulgence of the Hon'ble Court for their inability to produce the abovenamed individuals due to circumstances beyond their control." . It was• ritetated that c .

Daniel an4 C. Paul were not in thecustody or controi of respondent& l., 2, and 4, To thi~ r¢turn several alfidavi~ <Ind Pteiles wort . . .. . .. - '

.r . •

.~·

. ""l'

\ s. M l!ONGRAY v. UNiON (Desai; J.) 547

annexed saying that the Anny authorities conducted an extensive search for tracing C. Daniel and C. Paul but nothing Tniitful has been achieved One Surendra Kumar, Deputy Secretary, Ministry or Home Affairs had also filed the return stating that C. Daniel and C. Paul are neither in the custoily or confrol o( respondent No. 2.

It was stated that Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI for short) r have been directed to eonduct enquiries' to locate the aforementioned two persons and to 'intimate the result thereof. The matter was adjm+rned to enable the respondents to pursue their efforts.

Nothing 'fruitful .came up even though 'the'matter was twice adjcurned at the T-equest of !earned AttornQy General who entered appearance on behalf of respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4. The writ petition wa~ posted for further hearing and orders on April 19,

1984. On that day, a summary of enquiry made by CBI was sub- . mitted to the -Court in which if was stated that 'the fieid enquiries made' by the CBI and the efforts made to locate the two persons • have yielded no results .and it has-not been possible tO locate Sri Daniel and Sri Paul', The report was submitted by the Dy.

Inspector General of-Police (S). '

It is now necessary to deal with tilt failure of respondents I, 2 nd 4 to file the return to the_ writ ofhabas corpus. After a , preliminary enquiry and after hearing tho responents and after negativing their contentions that Shri C. Daniel and Shri C. Paul . were !lot seen last alive. in the custody or the 4th respondent, the Court directed to issue a writ of habeas corpus. The 'writ of habeas corpus w~.s issued and was served on respol)dcnts !, 2 and 4. In compliance with the •mandatory direction contained in the writ of habeas corpus, the 'person 'to whom it is direct rd is under a legal obligation to produce the body of person, alleged to be unlawfully detained before the Court on the day specified and to make a formal return. to tbe writ. (1} 6uch a writ has been issued and there has been failure to prod11ce the missing persons in respect 'of .whom writ is issued and to file the 'return as m1mdated by law:

The next question therefore, is : what is the appropriate mode of ¢nforcing obedience to a writ of habeas corpus ? •

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, defiries 'contempt of court' in Sec. 2(a) to. mean 'civil contempt ot criminal contempt'. 'Civil con-

. (!)· Halsbury's Laws ofEngland, Fourth Edition, Vol. 11 para. 1492 at

• page 791,

ff,

SUPREME (:OURT REPORTS (.1984] 3 s.c. Ji.,. ,

, A

. c

tempt' is defined 'in ec .. 2(b) to mean wilful di; obedience to any judgment decree, direction, order, writ or. other process of a Court or wil fnl breach 'of an undrtaklng.gi\len to a Court.' Wilful disobedience to a. writ issued by the Court constitutes civil contell)pt: The question is : whether this disobedience is Wilful ? Mere failure to olley the writ may not corrstitute civit contempt depending .upon the facts and circumstances of ihe case.· Butwilful disobedi_ence to.a, writ issued by.a Court constituts civil contempt; Again it is well' i ' s.ettled that 'the appropriatu ...\]iode' of enforcing :obedience to a wtit .f of habeas corpus is by committalfor.contemP.t.'. A committal order . may be m11de against a per&on '. who intenilonally makes a false return to a writ. of habeas corpus, 1lut11n •unintentional misrepresen: ~. • tation on a return is .not a ground f!)r .committal.'{')

.,...,..t The view of this Court a's. y:Ipfessed in the main judgirient '. clearly indicates that the ai;.rtion of respondents t, 2 al)d 4 that .._ • C. Oaniel and C. Paµ! left Phu, i}grej, Camp .where 21st Sikh .· Regi 7-· ,. ment were stati_oneq js not correct aaid. that to avoid responsiliili~ 'flpwing from the mysterious 4isappeara11ce of c::oaniel and c . .P~.IJi

an attempt . was• . made to suggest that tjiey- /lad left alivci in J)l.e • • company of their compatriots.· J'he Court has rejected this submis

sion as \lntenable fllld U9~9r.\'l'ct. Qn that con., tusion one can 111\Y that there is a wilful 4i$obe<lie!.!.ce to the )Vrit .. or babea~ corpµs -by ' misleadin~ tJie con rt .. by preSel)ting a Q, isjorted V.erion of facts :b.jl(

borne out by the rotd:.-It is tp\lJ stablished, that. the respond~!!l;•

I.· 1, 2 and 4 have. col}lmitted .dviC: contempt by their wllfUI diso, Q~· !' . diene to the wri!· '

Civil contempt is punishable with jmprisonment as well as fine. .

In a given case, . tb.~ .co'ui:tniay a~ penalise the party in con tempt . by ordering him to pay the costs of th~ application. <2l A fine ca~ also be imposed upon the contemnor. t ' . ' ' . . .

Now in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not propose to impose imprisonment' nor any amount as and by way of fine but. keeping in view 'the' torture, . the agony and the mental oppression through which Mrs. C. • Thingkhuila; wife of .Shri c; Daniel and.• Mi:s. C. Vangamla, wife of Shri C. Paul had to p~. and they being the proper applicants, the i'<;>rmal app, lication being by Sebastian M. Hongray, we direct that as a measure of exem

(1) ibid para 1497

(2) Halsbury's Laws of Eneland, l'ollrtl> Ellitiop, VoJ.' 9 para 100

at p. 61. .

. ,.

• s. !.! .. ~Ol; GRAY v. uNioN (Dsai, j,) . 549

 p!ary costs as is permissible ill such. cases, respondents .Nos. 1 'and 2 shall pay Rs I 'lac. to' each of llie aforementioned: two women within a period of four weeks from today.

•A query was posed to the learned Attorney General about the further step to. be taken .. It was made clear that further adjourning 'r the matter to enable the respondents H> trace or locale the two ·

missipg persons is to shut the. eyes to the reality and to p_nrsue a mirage. As we are inclined to direct regjstration of an offence and , an investigation, we express no opinion as to what fate has befallen to Shri C'. Daniel and Shri C. Paul, tlie missing two persons in res- . pect of whom the writ of ha!Jeas corpus was issued save and except saying; fhat they have not met their tragic end in an encounter as Is

usually claimed and the only possible inference that can be drawn from circumstance already discussed is that b.oth of them must have ""1' met an unnatural death. Prima facie, it would be an offence of

 murde~. Wh.o is individually or collect1vely the purpetrator of the crime or is reonsible for their disappearance will have to be deter-. ' mined by a proper, thorough an'd responsible poJi.ce investigation.

It is not neeessary to start casting a doubt on anyone or any particular person. But prima facie there is material on record to reach an. affirmative conclusion that both Shr1 C; Daniel and Shri C. Paul

are not alive and have met an unnatural death. And the Union of ,..( India cannot disown the responsfoility in this behalf. If this "inference is permissible which we consider reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the, Registrar (Judiciali shall forward aU the pap.ers of the case ace:ompanied by a writ of . manda.mus to. the Superintendent of Polie, Ukhrul, Manipur State to be'treated as' information of a cognizable offence and to commence i1westigation as prescribed by the r~Ievant provisions of the Code of Crimiital .procedure. "

S. R.

Rule made absolute •

A ' '

. E

SEBASTIAN M. HONGRAY

UNION OF INDIA & ORS

0. CIUNNAPPA REDDY, JJ.

Sections 2

Court Rules, 1966

Aja.i Vikram Singh Dirctor

Sec. 2(a)

Sec. 2(b)

C. Daniel

C. Paul

C.

Thingkhuiia

Sebastibn M. Hongray

DaBiel

Nandita Hak!iar

C.S. Vaidyqnatha11

A. Subhashini

Urwitla Kapoor

V.C. Mahaj4n

P.N. Purl S.K. Mehta

Balbir Singh Sha

DESAI

Ajai Vikram Singh

December 9,, 1983

December 12, 19S3

C. Pail

Surendra Kumar

Central Bureau of Investigation

April 19,

1984

CBI

Daniel

Paul

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Sec. 2(a)

C. • Thingkhuila

Sebastian M. Hongray

Halsbury's Laws of Eneland

C'. Daniel

Daniel


UNION OF INDIA

BIDHUBHUSHAN. MALIK AND OTHERS

Aprf/·~4,1984 ..

(0. CHINNAPPA REDDY;.A.P, SEN AND E.S. VENKATARAMiAH, JJ.J

High Court Judges (Condition• of Service) Act, 1954 (as ame,, ded)- , First Schedule-Para JO-Validity of,

Affirming the decision of tho High Court and dismissing t.he special leave petition, . • HELD : (I) The words "and who has retired on or after the Jsl day' of October, 1984" appearing in para 10 of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 (as amended) are unconsti mtional and are struck down.

[SSO A] •

 ' (2) The Judges (including the Chief Justices) of the High Courts are entitled lo pensfon as comput~ under the Act (as amended) irrespective of their date of. retirement. Bot they will not be entitled to arars of pension for the period preceding October I, 1984, the date which continues to be releVant as. being one from which the libcalised pension bCCame operative.

 lsso e.:.., c] ~

Decision of Al/a/rabadHigh Curt In W.P. No. 3281 of 1979 (Judgment delivered on March 2, 1983) upheld.· · ·

CIVIL AP)'ELLATB Ju1t1~DicrioN : Special Leave Petition (Civil) '.No. 9616 of 1983.

F From the Judgment and Order dated 2nd March, 1983 of the

Allahabaa High Court in Writ' Petition No. 3281 of 1979. "'

K. Parasaran,. Attorney General, R.D.4 garwala and R.N. Poddar for the Petitioner .

. The Order of the <;; ourt was delivered by .

CH!NNAPPA REDDY, J. The Allahabad High Court has held:

'".: .... The High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, .. 195·4, (as amended) hal1°be read down as under, in para 10 of the

\ UNION v. B!DHUBHUSHAN (Chinnappa Reddy, i.) .551

.First Schedule, the wordi "and win has retired on or after the !st' day of.October, 1974" are unconstitutional and are stru9k down. Omittin_g; the unconstitutional part it is declared that the Judges (including the. Chief Justices) of the High Court are entitled. to pension as computed wider the High Court Judges ( Condions of Service) Act, 1954, (as amended) irrespective of the date of retire

ment., The date October I, 1974, continues. to be relevant as being One from which the liberalised pension beeame operative underthe High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Act, 1976, irrespective of the date of retirement and hence there is no question .of payment of a1rears of pension for tli.e period preceding October

1., 1974 ......... "

• For the reasons mentioned by the learned Judge's of the ,

Allahabad High .Court in their Judgment, we agree with their ' conclusion and dismiss the special kave petition .

 B:.S.K Petition dismissM .

UNION OF INDIA

BIDHUBHUSHAN. MALIK AND OTHERS

0. CHINNAPPA REDDY

SEN

E.S. VENKATARAMiAH, JJ

First Schedule

First Schedule

K. Parasaran

R.N. Poddar

Allahabad High Court

B!DHUBHUSHAN (Chinnappa Reddy

First Schedule


. '

S5~L

- -~ ...

N.L. ABHYANKAR AND OTI~ERS ETC ..

. •. • v • -.

UNION OF.INDIA· . . April l4, 1984 • .

. [O~ CHINNAPPA: RmoY, A.P. SEN AND E.S.

vrNKATARAMIAu,· 1n -:t. • .High Court iude~ (Co.1ditidns. ~! .se.rvice) Ac/ 19.54. s. 1.5 First -Schedule_ Pari] para -10 & The High. Co; t JuiJt!S (Conlitl.Jns of SeTvic~)

Amendment Act 1976.: '. · · · : . : ·

~ . . . -- - . . ' .

Sup:i'eme Court Ji.idge3 -(Condition's of Serlie) Act i9S8, S. 14 & '(he Supreme Conrt Jndges (Condltlons of ; service) Amend1neizt Act 1976. r . . .

Retired Judie:_;.High Court & Suprme Court enhancedPenionary ben-efits entitlemeni fo.....;.lrrt[spective OJ date ofretirem_ent, :; .. - < ; -"i - ' - . . . , . . ·. , ._ . ' -.

- " • The Judges of the' High C0ur.t and of the Supreme. Court will be entitled to 1he'pension1ry be:iCfitS u11der- the amended Act of 1976 irres.=. . pective or the dateS of their -re_tiremcnt. They will be sci ea'titled with e_tf ect ·• from t.to.1974. Arrears of pension calculated under th~ .Pro\'jsions of th~ new Act "wiU be paid to those to Whom it is -due within four. months. In~ tbO. ·

case of Judges' who have died after' t.10.19'74 theamout1ts. due wiTI b~ p1id ··to the legal heirs of the Judges withiO four months. The family"pension due tothe Widows _will be calculated under the' proVi.sioos of the 1976 Amending Act and paid.to them. Ad-boC p.iym;:nts rOadeJ if any, V:.in be {ldjllsfed while _!Daking sue~ payments.

[S52 D:-F] . '

. .

CIVIL. ORIGINAl. . JURISDICTION:· Writ Peiition '(Civil) Nos. 3S31 to 3534' of 1983;. )I

(Under Article 32 of th~ Cotlstitution)

• With . . . . . . . . ( " Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 4831 to 4833 of.1'}83.

' (Under Article 32 of the Contitution) •

And Writ Petition°cCivil)_:rfo. 13243_ of 1983

(l, Jnd•:" Article 3.2 of the. Constitution) - V. A. Bobde; A. K. Sanghi,' Ms .. Amaljit . Chauhan and Smt.

:. R. B. Bobde for the petitioners: . . . , . . ..

, N. L. ABHl'AN!(l\R ' lJNlON (Chinnappa-Rerjdy, J.)

SS3 1 D. K. Garg for the Petitloner in Writ Petition No. 13243 of 1983. -

K. Parasaran, Attorney General, R. D. Agarwal ad R. N.

Poddar for the Repondent ·

The Order <?f the Court was delivered by

' CaiNNAPPA RiiooY, J. In view or'our decision in D.S. Nakara 1

v. Vnion of India, l'i'[I983] I SCC 305 and for the reasons mentioned . by the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 3281of1979 dated 2.3.1983 in the case of Bidhubhushan Malik and otlters-v.

Union of India, wh-ich we have accepted as correct in Special Leave Petition No. 9616 of 1983 just now dismissed by us we allow the , writ petitions. The Judges of the High Court anl! of the Supreme Court will be ei<titled to thepensionary benefits 'under the amended Act of 1976 irrespective of the dates of their retirement. They will "'1 be so entitled with effect from 1.10.1974, Arrears of pension calculatedunder_ the provlsio"n, s of the new Act will be paid to those to whom it is due within four months from today. In the case of Judges who have died after 1.10.1974 the amounts due will be paid to the legal heirs of the Judges within four months from today. The family pension due to the_ widows will b, e calculated unper the provisions_ of the 1976 Amending Act and paid to them. Ad hoc paymenis made, ifany, will be adjusted while making such pay· _; ments. The writ petitions are disppsed of accordingly. What we_ have said a!iout pensionary benefits does not llPPIY to payn:tent of . gratuity. .,

N.V.K.

Petition allowed.

1)[1984] 3 S.C.R. SSO

L. ABHYANKAR AND OTI~ERS ETC

UNION OF.INDIA

A.P. SEN

s. 1

Amendment Act 1976

S. 14

Article 32

Article 32

Article 3

V. A. Bobde

A. K. Sanghi

Amaljit . Chauhan

R. B. Bobde

D. K. Garg

K. Parasaran

R. D. Agarwal

R. N.

Poddar

CaiNNAPPA RiiooY

Union of India