2,500/ in cash within six weeks for the companyts of the respondents.
The petitioner was directed on December 12, 1961 when rule was ordered to issue to the respondents Excise Commissioner, P. Allahabad, and the State of Uttar Pradesh to furnish security in the sum of Rs.
32 petition No.
partners of M s. Industrial Chemical Corporation, Ghaziabad, have filed under Art.
By this petition, the petitioners companytend that the impugned Rule, in so far as it relates to the giving of security, is ultra vires, because it companytravenes the fundamental right guranteed to the petitioners under Art.
348 of 1961 invoking jurisdiction of this Court to issue a writ under Art.
This application was dismissed, but at the request of the petitioner time for furnishing security was extended till March 26, 1962.
This order was passed on March 15, 1962.
348 of 1961 impeaching the validity of the order passed by the Excise Commissioner refusing permission to the Distillery to supply power alcohol to the petitioners.
This petition was admitted on December 12, 1961 and a Rule was ordered to be issued to the respondents, the Excise Commissioner of U.P., Allahabad, and the State of U. P. At the time when the rule was thus issued, this Court directed under the impugned Rule that the petitioners should deposit a security of Rs.
The Judgment of Sinha, C.J., Gajendragadkar, Wanchoo and Das Gupta, JJ.,
2,500/ in cash within six weeks.
November, 6.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petition No.
The petitioners Prem Chand Garg, 8 Anr.,
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, B. R. L. Iyengar and R. H. Dhebar, for respondent No.
32 of the Constitution on the plea that certain orders passed by the Excise Commissioner, U.P. were invalid.
The petitioners then tried to companylect the requisite fund, but failed in their efforts, and that has led to the present petition filed on March 24, 1962.
52 of 1962.
S. Pathak, B. Gopalakrishnan and Naunit Lal, for the petitioners.
This application was dismissed, but the petitioners were given further time to deposit the said amount by March 26, 1962.
32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of fundamental rights.
S. Hajela and C. P. Lal, for the respondents Nos.
Stating that his efforts to companylect the requisite amount were unsuccessful, the petitioner presented this petition and prayed that the order requiring him to furnish security in the sum of Rs.
Petition under Art.
One of the proceedings companyered by Order XXXV is a petition under Art.
According to the practice of this Court prevailing since 1959, this order is treated as a companydition precedent for issuing rule Nisi to the impleaded respon dents.
The petitioners found it difficult to raise this amount and so, on January 24, 1962, they moved this Court for a modification of the said order as to security.
SHAH, J. The petitioner filed petition No.
The petitioner failed to companyply with the order, and moved this Court for modification thereof.
