SAGHIR AHMAD versus THE STATE OF U. P. AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 707 · Decided: 13-10-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 20 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
-
· S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
707 
The learned 
Attorney-General 
argued that Ram 
Narain was a native Indian subject of 
Her 
Majesty 
before the 15th August, 1947, and 
that description 
continued to apply to him after the 15th 
August, 1947, 
whether he was in India or in Pakistan, but we think 
that the. description 'Native subject of 
Her Majesty' 
after the 15th of August, 1947, became 
applicable m 
the territory now constituted India only to residents 
of provinces 
within the boundaries of India, and in 
Pakistan to residents of provinces within the boundaries 
of 
Pakistan and till the time that Ram Narain actually 
landed on the soil of India 
and 
took up permanent 
residence therein he cannot be described to be domiciled 
m 
India or 
even a 
Native 
Indian subject of 
His 
Majesty domiciled in India. 
For the reasons given above we are of the opinion 
that the decision of the High Court that Ram Narain 
could not be tried in any Court in India for offences 
committed in Mailsi in November, 1947, is right and 
that the Provincial 
Government had no power 
under 
section 188, Criminal Procedure Code, to accord sanction 
to his prosecution. 
The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed. 
Appeal dismissed. 
SAGHIR AHMAD 
ti. 
THE STATE OF U. P. AND OTHERS. 
(With Connected Appeal) 
[M1mR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., MuKHERJEA, 
S. R. DAs, VIVIAN BosE and GHULAM HASAN JJ.] 
Constitution of India, Arts. 14, 19(1) (g), 19(6), 31(2), 301-
Highway-lts origin and use-Citizen's rights in respect of high-
ways-Vis-a-vis the State-State's right to 
control highway-Limit 
of such control-Constitution of India (First Amendment) Act, 1951 
"'" 
-U. P. Road Transport Act, 1951 (U. P. Act II of 1951)-Whether 
ultra vires the Constit,~tion-Subsequent amendment of Constitution 
if can validate a prior unconstitutional Act. 
1954 
Central Bank of 
India Ltd. 
v. 
Ram Narain. 
Mahajan C. ], 
1954 
October I3f 
1954 
Sa1hfr. Ahmad 
v. 
The State of 
. U.P. 
and Olhtrs. 
708 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
A highway has· its origin, apart 
fro1n statute, in dedication 
either express or implied, by the owner of land of a right of passage 
over it to the public and the acceptance thereof 
by the public. 
Dedication is presumed by long and 
uninterrupted user of a way 
by the public. 
The presumption in such cases is so strong as to 
dispense with all enquiry into the actual ownership of the land or 
the intention of the owner about its user. 
All public streets and roads vest in the State, but the State 
holds them as trustees on behalf of the public. 
The members of 
the public are entitled as beneficiaries to use them as a matter of 
right _ a~nd this right is limited only by the similar rights possessed 
by every other citizen to use the pathways. The State as trustees 
on behalf of the public is entitled to in1pose all such limitations on 
the character and extent of the 
user as 
may be requisite for 
protecting 
the rights of 
the public generally ; but subject 
to 
such limitations the right 
of a citizen to carry on business in 
transport vehicles on public 
path\vays cannot be denied to him on 
the ground that the State owns the highways. 
G. S. S. Motor Service v. State 
of 
Madras ((1952] 2 M. L. J. 
894) referred to with appronl. 
-
Within the 
limits imposed by State regulations 
any member 
of the public can ply motor vehicles on a public road. 
To that 
extent he can also carry on the business of transporting passengers 
with the aid of vehicles. 
lt is to this carrying on of the trade or 
business that the guarantee in Art. 19(1) (g) is attracted and a 
citizen can legitimately complain if any legislation takes away or 
curtails that right any more than is pennissible under clause (6) of 
<" 
that articl'!. 
Article 19(6) as the result of the Constitution (First Amend-
ment) Act, 1951, enables the 
State to carry on any 
trade or 
business either by itself or through corporations owned or control-
led by the 
State to the exclusion of private citizens wholly or in 
part. 
This provision of Art. 19(6), which was introduced by the 
an1endment of the 
Constitution. in 1951, 
was not in existence 
when the U. P. Road Transport Act, 1951 (U. P. Act II of 1951), 
was passed and therefore the validity of the impugned Act is not 
to be decided by applying the provisions of the new clause. 
A1nendment of the Constitution which came later cannot be 
invoked to validate an earlier legislation \Vhich 1nust be regarded

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