JAWALA RAM versus STATE OF PEPSU

JAWALA RAM versus STATE OF PEPSU

The use of water by the appellants was not an 'offence' and the levy of special rates for such use was not the imposition of a 'penalty' for an offence as contemplated under Article 20(1) of the Constitution. Therefore, Sections 3 and 4 of the Pepsu Sirhind Canal and Western Jamuna Canal Rules (Enforcement and...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Jawala Ram; Respondent: State of Pepsu
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 April 1961
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order of the PEPSU High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Retrospective Application of Law, Imposition of Special Charges, Article 20(1) of the Constitution, Canal and Drainage Law, Validity of Legislative Acts
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Retrospective Application of Law Imposition of Special Charges Article 20(1) of the Constitution Canal and Drainage Law Validity of Legislative Acts

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jawala Ram

Appellant

State of Pepsu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order of the PEPSU High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the use of water by the appellants constituted an 'offence'.
  2. 2 Whether the levy of special charges under Rules 32 and 33 of the Sirhind Canal Rules read with section 31 of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, amounts to the imposition of a 'penalty' within the meaning of Article 20(1) of the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether sections 3 and 4 of the Pepsu Sirhind Canal and Western Jamuna Canal Rules (Enforcement and Validation) Act, 1954 are unconstitutional as being in contravention of Article 20(1) of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The use of water by the appellants was not an 'offence' and the levy of special rates for such use was not the imposition of a 'penalty' for an offence as contemplated under Article 20(1) of the Constitution. Therefore, Sections 3 and 4 of the Pepsu Sirhind Canal and Western Jamuna Canal Rules (Enforcement and Validation) Act, 1954 do not violate Article 20(1).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.