LexTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER versus BALDEO PRASAD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961) 196° the appellant's right is based a.re rules or regulations M having the force of law the impugned executive order adhavrao PhaJAe • ed b d t l Jd be · ) 'd Th · h 1ssu y respon en wou mva 1 • e rig t n, ;;ate of guaranteed to the appellant by an existing law can- Jt.dhya Bharat not be extinguished by the issue of an executive order. ·. - In fact on this point there has never been a dispute Ga1••dragadAar I between the parties in the present proceedings. That is why the only point of controversy between the parties was whether the Kalambandis in question amount to an existing law .or not. Since we have answered this question in favour of the appellant we must allow the appeal, set a.side the order passed by the High Court and direct that & proper writ or order should be issued in favour of the appellant as prayed for by him. The appellant would be entitled to his oosts throughout. Appeal allowed. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER ti. BALDEO PRASAD (B. P. SINHA, c. J., J. L. KAPUR, P. B. GAJENDBA· GADKAB, K. SuBBJ RAo and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) GOOflllas, Conlrol and EJtcl11si011 of-Conslil11ti-Onal validity of enadment-Test-Central PrOl!inces and Berar G0011tlas Act, r946 (X of r946) a.s amerukd by Act XLIX of r950, ss. 4, 4-A-C011s· litllltOfl of IM.ia, Aris. r9(r}(d) & (e), IJ. By an order passed under s. 4-A of the Central Province. and Berar Goondas Act, 1946 (X o! 1946), as amended by the Madhya Pradesh Act XLIX of 1950, the State of Madhya Pra. desh directed the respondent to leave the district of Chhind- wara, which bad been specified as a proclaimed area under the Act, and the District Magistrate by another order communicat- ed the same to the respondent. The respondent challenged the said orders under Art. 226 of the Constitution on the growul that the Act violated his lundamental rights under Art. 19o)(d) and (e) of the Constitution and was, therefore, invalidated' by Art. 13 of the Constitution. The HigJ> Court held that ss. 4 and 4-A of the impugned Act were invalid and since they w~e the r .. ,l/'I -. 1 s.c.R: SUPREME COURT REPORTS 971 main operative provisions of the Act, the whole Act was in- I960 valid. Ileld, that when a statute authorises preventive action .gainst.the citizens, it is essential that it must expressly provide tlfat the specified authorities should satisfy themselves that the d>nditions precedent laid down by the statute existed before they acted thereunder. If the statute fails to do so in respect of any such condition precedent, that is an infirmity sufficient to take the statute out of Art. 19(5) of the Constitution. Although there can be no doubt that ss. 4 an.d 4-A of the impugned Act clearly contemplated. as the primary condition preced~nt to any action thereunder that the person sought to be proceeded against must be a goonda, they fail to provide that the District Magistrate should first find that the person sought to be proceeded against was a goonda or provide any guidance whatsoever .in that regard 01 afford any opportunity to. the person proceeded against to show that he was not a goonda. The definition of a goonda laid down by the Act, which is of an inclusive character, indicated no tests for deciding whether the person fell within the first part of the definition. Gurbachan Singh v. The Slate of Bombay, [1952] S.C.R. 737, Bhagubhai Dullabhabhai Bhandari v. The District Magistrate, Thana, [1956] S:C.R. 533 and Hari Khenu Gawali v. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bombay, [1956] S.C.R. 506, referred to. Although the object of the impugned Act was beyond rep- roach and might well attract Art. i9(5) of the Constitution, since the Act itself failed to provide sufficient safeguards for the protection of the fundamental rights and the operative sections were thus rendered invalid, the entire Act must fail. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 271 of 1956. Appeal from the judgment a.nd order dated August 2, 1955, of the former Nagpur High Court in Misc. Petition No. 249 of 1955 . . M. Adhikari, Advocate.General "for the State of Madhya Prade8h, B. K. B. Naidu a.nd I. N. Shroff, for the a.ppella.nts. R. Patnai.k, for the respondent. 1960. October 3. The Judgment of the Court we.a delivered by · The Sta.le of Madhya Pradesh c;. Anothet v. Bald10 Prasad GAJENDBAGADKAB J.-'J;hia appeal with &. oertifi, Goj1ndra1adhr J. ca.te i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.