N. Mukherjee, for Interveners Nos.
13 and 19 to 21.
Udayairatnam, S. S. Dalal and D. D. Sharma, for Inter veners Nos.
14 and 15.
829 Court was pronounced on December 5, 1961.
K Garg, D P. Singh, M. K. Ramamurthi, S. C. Agarwala, D. Gupta and K. M. K. Nair for Intervener No.
Even on the assumption that the impugned Act is unconstitutional the principle of stare decisis must be applied to the present case and the plea made by the petitioners for reconsideration of Sankari Prasads case and Sajjan Singhs case must be rejected.
88, 89.
Parasaran and K. R. Chaudhuri, for Intervener No.
V. S. Mani, S. K, Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for the petitioners.
A. Palkhiwala, F. S. Nariman, M. L. Bhakte, D. M. Popat,0.
Basudev Prasad, K. Rajendra Chaudhuri, K. R. Chaudhuri and N. Prasad, for Interveners Nos.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforce ment of the Fundamental Rights And Writ Petition No.
Basudev Prasad, K. Parasaran and K. R. Chaudhuri, for Intervener No.
Ram Reddy and T. V. R. Tatachari, for Intervener No.
948 D E On the landings it was number necessary to express an opinion on the doctrine of prospective overruling of legislation.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of the Fundamental Rights And Writ Petition No.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of the Fundamental Rights In Writ Petition No.
L. Mishra, Advocate General for the State of Uttar Pradesh, and O. P. Rana, for Intervener No.,
Three opinions weredelivered by Gajendragadkar, C.J. on behalf of Wanchoo and Raghubar Dayal, JJ.
Niren,De, Additional Solicitor General of India,and N. Sachthey, for the Respondents.
948 G H ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
22 to 24.
Advocate General for the State of Madras, B. Ramamurthi and A. V. Rangam, for Intervener No.
B. Mehta, for Intervener No.
in Writ Petition No.
202 of 1966.
Niren De, Additional Solicitor General, N. S. Bindra and N. Sachthey, for Respondent No.
D. Banerjee, Advocate General for the State of West Bengal, Sen and P. K. Bose,for Intervener No.2.
Niren De, Additional Solicitor General of India,G.Rajagopal, and R. H. Dhebar,for Intervener Ng.
The Judgment Of SUBBA RAO, C.J., SHAH, SIKRI, SHELAT and VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.
K. Nambyar, K. B. Jinaraja Hegde, N. A., Subramaniam, Bhuvanesh Kumari, O. C. Mathur, J. B. Dadachanji and Ravin der Narain, for the Petitioner.
R. Gokhale, B. P G. K. Achar, K. H. Dhebar, R. N. Sachthey and S. P. Nayyar, for Respondent No.
205 of 1966.
205 of 1966.
58 of 1961 was the subject matter of debate, and by the decision of this Court pronounced, on March 9, 1964, it was declared that the whole Act was invalid.
K. Nambyar, K. B. Jinaraja Hegde, N. A. Subramaniam, Bhuvanesh Kumari, O. C. Mathur, J. B. Dadachanji and Ravin der Narain, for the Petitioner.
153 of 1966.
153 of 1966.
G. Patwardhan, D. M. Parulekar, B. Dutta, S. K. Dhelika, B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the Intervener.
Thiagarajan, for Intervener No.
Mohan Kumaramangalam.,
K. Sen, F. S. Nariman, M. L. Bhakte, S. I. Thakere, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for Intervener No.
I found the reasoning in Sankari Prasads case 1 to be unaccept able, although for reasons which I shall give, I refrained from expressing a final opinion.
In Writ Petition No.
P. Malhotra, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for Intervener No.
Naunit Lal, for Intervener No.
202 of 1966.
Lal Narain Sinha, Advocate General for the State of Bihar, Bajrang Saha, M. M. Gajadhar, K. M. K. Nair, D. P. Singh, K. Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg, S. C Agarwala and G. D. Gupta, for Intervener No.
D. Mahajan and R. H. Dhebar, for Intervener No.,
R. Gokhale, B. R. G. K. Achar, R. H. Dhebar and S. P. Nayyar, for Respondent No.
A. Seyid Muhamad, Advocate General for the State of Kerala, B. R. L. Iyengar, A. G. Pudissery, for Intervener No.
C. Stealvad, B. R. L. Iyengar and R. H. Dhebar, for Inter vener No.
M., Parulekar B. Dutta, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for Intervener No.
and himself, by Mudholkar, J. and by me.
