JYOTI PERSHAD versus THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI (AND CONNECTED PETITIONS)

Citation: [1962] 2 S.C.R. 125 · Decided: 21-04-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 10 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

•
-
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
125
out that though Rustica varieties of tobacco are gene-
'96'
rally not known to be used for biris, when they are
Jagan•ath
cured in broken leaf grades they cau be used with
v.
admixture with biri tobacco like Pandharpuri tobacco Union of llldia
for imparting strength to biri mixtures, and so accord-
. ---
ing to the Committee no generalisation in this matter Ga;endrngadkar J.
is possible and it cannot be asserted that. all forms of
this variety are incapable of use in biris.
Besides, it
would be quite possible for dealers in the said varie-
ties of tobacco to send them to other parts of the
country where they are used for the purpose of manu-
facturing biris. Therefore, the grievance made by
the petitioners that the tobacco in which they deal
can never be used for biris i8 obviously nut well
founded.
In the result the petition fails and is di,,missed with
costs.
Petition dismissed.
JYOTI PERSHAD
v.
THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE UNION
TERH.ITORY OF DELHI
(AND CONNECTED PETITIONS)
(B. P. SINHA, 0 .• J., s. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR,
N. H.AJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and
J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.)
Slu1n Areas-J.mprovement and clearance of-Validity of enact-
ment-Co,.stit,.tionality-Rent Control-Operation
of Rent Con-
trol Act in areas governed by Slmn Areas Act-Delhi 6- Ajmer Rent
Control Act, I952 (38 of I952)-Slum Areas (Improvement and
Clearance) Act, Ig56 (96 of Ig56), s. r9-Constitutian of lndid,
Arts. I4, r9(r)(j).
The petitioner after a prolonged litigation and having fu].
filled all the conditions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, obtained
decrees of ejectment against the tenants,
April 2I.
126
SUPREME l!)QURT REPORTS
[1962)
z96z
In the meantime the Slum' Areas (Improvement and Clea-
rance) ~.\\ct, 1956, came into force and the petitioner in accordance
Jyoti Pershad withs. rg of the said ,Slum1Areas .(I.ct applied to-the competent
v.
authority for per.mission to execute the.decree, \yhich perplissio~
Administrator for \Vas ref Used inter alia on the grounds O[ harrlship tO the tenants 3.nd
The Union Terri- the hurhan aspect ·of th~··ca::;e. 1iTh'e appeals therefrom Were also
tory of Delhi
rejected1
The' petitioner moved the Supreme Court fOr issue of
a. writ of certiorari to quash the orders on the ground that (I)
s. rg ol the Act was invalid an\! uncons\i~utional as violative, of
the petitioner's rights guaranteed by Arts. 14 and i9(r)(f) of the
Constitution, in as much as s., 19 of the Slum Areas Act' was a
super-imposition on the rights of die petitio!\er who had s~ tisfied
the requirements of the Rent' Control Act bdfore obtaining his
decree, which amounted to unreasonable re~trictions on the right.
to hold:property guaranteed by the Constituti9n, and (2) that
s. 19(3) of the Slum Areas Act vested an unzuided, unfettered, and
uncontrolled Power in arl exedutive officer to \vithhold permis-
sion to execute a decree which the petitioner had obtained alter
satisfying the reasonkble requirem,.ents of the la\v as enacted in
the Rent Control Act, (3) The power conferred on the compe-
tent authority bys. 19(3) of the Slum Areas Act was an exces-
_sive delegation of lt:.gislaiive po\ver and therefore unconstitu-
tional.
Held, thats. rg of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clea-
rance) Act, 19561-3.yas not obnoxious to the equal protection of
laws guaranteed by''Ai;t. 14 of the Constitution. There was
enough guidance to the competent ·authority in the use of his
<liscretjon under s. 19.(1) of the Act_ The restrictions imposed
by s. I9 of the Act could not' b'e said to be unreasonable.
The guidance could be derived irom the enactment anrl that
it bears a reasonable aQd rational. relationship to the 0bjccnti
be attainen by the A~t and 'in fact would fultll the 'purpose
which lhe law seeks to. achieve, viz., the orderly elimination of
slums, with interim protection for tl;e slum dwellers until they
were moved info better dwellings.
T\le order of ~he. competent authority in the present case
was not open to challenge as it' was ,in line .with the policy and
purpose of the Act.
•
So long as the Legislature indicated in.the operative provi-
sions of the statute with certainty, the .. pohcy and purpose of
the enactment, the-mere fact that the legislation \Vas skeletal
or that every detail of the application of law to a particular
case, was not laid down in- the enactment itself or the fact that
e. discretio~ )Vas left to those en trust

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.