STATE OF JAMMU KASHMIR versus MIR GULAM RASUL

Citation: [1961] 3 S.C.R. 969 · Decided: 23-02-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' 
' ' 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
969 
at the time of the de'.l.th of the testator and not later 
1961 
and that the appellant would get an interest under 
Kastud 
cl. 12 only if the widow of the testator pre.deceased 
v. 
the testator and there is no adoption by the testator 
Ponnammal 
before his death. If that be so, the appellant cannot 
claim any right or title on the strength of cl. 12 be- Gajend,agadkar I· 
cause at the relevant time it was not intended to be 
operative at all. In the circumstances the appellant's 
rights are provided for by cl. 11 alone, and those 
rights cannot come into existence unless and until he 
is adopted by respondent 1. On that view there is a 
possibility of intestacy and there is postponement of 
vesting; but that cannot be avoided. That is the 
view taken by the courts below, and having carefully 
considered the argument urged before us by Mr. Sastri 
on behalf of the appellant we see no reason to inter-
fere with the said conclusion. 
Th.e result is the appeal fails; there would be no 
ordQr as tu c.osts. 
Appeal dismissed. 
STATE OF JAMMU KASHMIR 
v. 
MIR GULAM RASUL. 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, 
K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) 
Fundamental rights-Equality before law-Breach of law, if 
amounts to violation of equal protection of law-Writ Petition-No 
fundamental right involved-Duty of High Court-Constitution of 
India, Arts. I4, 32(2A). 
The Government of J ammu and Kashmir on the basis of the 
report of the commission of enquiry set up by it demoted the 
respondent who had been suspended earlier .. The respondent 
moved the Jammu and Kashmir High Court under Art. 32(2A) 
of the Constitution of India as applied to the State of Jammu and 
Kashmir for a writ, inter alia, questioning the validity of the 
order suspending and demoting him, alleging violation of rules of 
natural justice by the commission of enquiry and breach of 
statutes and rules of service. Articles 226 and 3n(2) of the Con-
stitution of India had not been applied to the State of Jammu 
Ftbrttary 23 
!J70 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1961] 
1961 
and Kashmir. The High Court acting under Art. 32(2A) set aside 
the orders suspending and demoting the respondent. 
State oj 
Held, that the High Court had no powers to act under 
Jammu and 
Art. 32(2A) of the Constitution of India as the writ petition did 
l\n;hmfr 
not disclose a violation of any fundamental right. 
NF G 1v. R 
1 
Held, further, that the breach of a Jaw by the Government, if 
i_r .ii ani 
asu any, did not amount to a denial of the equal protection ·Of the 
laws, as it had not ever been alleged by the respondent that the 
benefit of that Jaw had been designedly denied only to him. 
Sarkar]. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 
31 of 1957. 
Appeal from 
the judgment and order dated 
September 27, 1955, of the Jammti and Kashmir High 
Court in Misc. Application No. 23of1955. 
J aswant Singh, Advocate-General for the State of 
. Jammu and Kashmir and R. H. Dhebar, for the 
appellant. 
S. N. Andley, J.B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and 
P. L. Vohra,.for respondent. 
1961. February 23. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
SARKAR, J.-The respondent is a Civil Engineer 
who held various positions under the appellant, the 
Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. On 
September 8, 1954, while the respondent was holding 
the post M Development Commissioner, he was placed . 
under suspension by an order made by the a.ppellant ·. 
on that date. Later, the appellant passed another 
order on February 12, 1955, demoting the petitioner 
to the post of a Divisional Engineer. 
On May 12, 1955, the respondent moved the High 
Court of Jammu and Kashmir under Art. 32(2A) of 
the Constitution of India as applied to the State of 
Jammu and Kashmir, for a, writ directing the appel-
lant not to give effect to the order dated February 12, 
1955, and to 'recognise him as the Chief Engineer. the 
substantive post held by him when he was suspended, 
with effect from the date of suspension and with all 
the emoluments of that office. The High Court issued. 
the writ as prayed. The State appeals from the judg-
14ent of the High Court, 
< 
I 
J 
.... 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
!l71 
In the view that, we think, must be taken of this 
1961 
case, it is unnecessary to go into the facts a great 
State •! 
deal. At one stage of his career under the appellant, 
fammu a•d 
the respondent held a job of some respons
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.