STATE OF MYSORE versus H. SANJEEVIAH

STATE OF MYSORE versus H. SANJEEVIAH

Provisos to Rule 2 are not regulatory but restrictive in nature, lack authority under s.37 of the Act, infringe Art.301, and are not protected as 'existing law' by Art.305 nor as reasonable restrictions under Art.304. Thus, they are unconstitutional and invalid.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: STATE OF MYSORE; Respondent: H. SANJEEVIAH
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 January 1967
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated July 11, 1963 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 1601 of 1962
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rule Making Power, Freedom of Trade and Commerce, Existing Law Under Constitution, Regulation Vs Restriction
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Forestry Law Rule Making Power Freedom of Trade and Commerce Existing Law Under Constitution Regulation Vs Restriction

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

STATE OF MYSORE

Appellant

H. SANJEEVIAH

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated July 11, 1963 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 1601 of 1962

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether provisos to Rule 2 framed under s.37 of Madras Forest Act are beyond rule-making power
  2. 2 Whether the provisos violate freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse under Art.301 of Constitution
  3. 3 Whether provisos are saved by Art.305 as 'existing law'

Ratio Decidendi

Provisos to Rule 2 are not regulatory but restrictive in nature, lack authority under s.37 of the Act, infringe Art.301, and are not protected as 'existing law' by Art.305 nor as reasonable restrictions under Art.304. Thus, they are unconstitutional and invalid.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Provisos to Rule 2 held unconstitutional and invalid
  • Costs awarded to respondent