The restrictions imposed by section 3 of the U. P. Special Powers Act, 1932, were number in the interests of public order.
In the first instance the petition came up for disposal before a division bench of the High Court at Allahabad companysisting of Desai and Chaturvedi, Elaborate arguments were addressed before them companyering a wide field.
Pursuant to the policy of his party, the respondent visited Farrukhabad and addressed two public meetings wherein he made speeches instigating the audience number to pay enhanced irrigation rates to the Government.
Thereafter the respondent filed a petition before the High Court for a writ of habeas companypus on the ground, among others, that s. 3 of the U. P. Special Powers Act Act No.
and ii if so, was it in the interests of public order ? .
Appeal from the judgment and order dated August 27, 1954, of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc.
The party to which the respondent belongs resolved to start an agitation against the said enhancement for the alleged reason that it placed an unbearable burden upon the cultivators.
On July 6, 1954, the Magistrate went to the jail to try the case against the respondent, but the latter took objection to the trial being held in the jail premises.
19 1 a of the Constitution on the 26th of January, 1950 ?
Mathur and C. P. Lal, for the appellants.
XIV of 1932 , 1932, hereinafter called the Act was void under the Constitution.
The U. Government enhanced the irrigation rates for water supplied from canals to cultivators.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
20 of 1954.
S. Bindra, for the respondent.1960.
Writ No.
The respondent, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, is the General Secretary of the Socialist Party of India.
76 of 1956.
The facts are number in dispute and they lie in a small companypass.
On July 4, 1954, at 10 p.m. he was arrested and produced before the City Magistrate, Farrukhabad, who remanded him for two days.
After investigation, the Station officer, Kaimganj, filed a charge sheet against the respondent before Sri P. R. Gupta, a Judicial Officer at Farrukliabad.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA RAO J. This appeal raises the question of interpretation of the words in the interest of public order in Art.
19 2 of the Constitution.
January 21.
L. Misra, Advocate General for the State of Uttar Pradesh.
When the Magistrate insisted upon proceeding with the trial, the respondent obtained an adjournment on the ground that he would like to move the High Court for transfer of the case from the file of the said Magistrate.
In the usual companyrse the matter was placed before the two learned Judges who first heard the case and they, on the basis of the majority view, allowed the petition and directed the respondent to be released The State has preferred the present appeal against the said order of the High Court.
