Sold Property During Pending Appeal, Defied Court Order: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sends Man To Jail For Contempt Hostile Witness Cannot Erase a Bribe Demand Already Made on Record: Supreme Court Restores Conviction of Ration Officer Three Decades of Unpaid Wages: Supreme Court Strips Gannon Dunkerley of Control Over Sick Company's Assets, Appoints Administrator to Pay Workers by August 2026 Gram Nyayalaya Cannot Touch Family Court's Maintenance Orders — Allahabad High Court Draws the Line Caste Abuse Allegation at Village Jatra Is Counter-Blast to Earlier Machete Attack: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Despite SC/ST Act Bar Contributory Negligence | Not Wearing a Helmet Does Not Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Madras High Court Air Force Can't Punish Officer After Criminal Court Sets Him Free: Supreme Court Overturns 30-Year-Old Dismissal Written Statement Without Affidavit of Admission/Denial: Non-Est Filing or Curable Defect? Delhi High Court Refers Conflicting Views to Larger Bench Bank's Negligence Killed Cheque Bounce Case Before It Could Begin: Supreme Court Rules Section 138 Remedy Lost Due to Stale Cheques Bank Letting Your Cheques Go Stale Is Deficiency in Service: Supreme Court Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Benefit Of Probation Act Available Even If Offender Is Sentenced Solely To Fine: Supreme Court Reporting Registration Of FIR Based On Public Records Does Not Violate Right To Privacy: Sikkim High Court CBSE Cannot Cancel Class XII Results Based on Similar MCQ Answers Alone Without Any Report of Malpractice From Examination Centre: Orissa High Court

Karnataka Court Sets Aside Executive Guidelines, Emphasizes ‘No Person Can Be Deprived of His Property Save by Authority of Law

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision, the court has set aside executive guidelines that imposed land-use restrictions near defense establishments. The judgment, delivered by [Name of the Judge] on [Date], emphasized that “no person can be deprived of his property save by authority of law,” citing Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

The case involved a writ petition filed by Jambo Plastics Pvt. Ltd. And Merushikhar Infra LLP against the Chief Quality Assurance Establishment and the Commissioner of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The petitioners sought to quash certain endorsements and letters, particularly those dated 15.07.2016 and 03.09.2016, that had been issued against them.

The court held that the Works of Defence Act, 1903, exclusively governs the imposition of land-use restrictions near defense establishments. “Executive instructions cannot abridge fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution,” the court observed, citing previous Apex Court decisions.

The judgment also found that the guidelines were not issued in the name of the President, making them invalid under Article 77(3) of the Constitution. “Rights cannot be abridged by executive action without legislative backing,” the court added, referencing Article 13(2) and Article 19 of the Constitution.

As a result, the court directed the respondent-BBMP to proceed with the grant of the sanction plan without relying on the Guidelines. “The process is to be completed as per law, within a period of three months,” the court ordered.

 Date of Decision: 29 August 2023

JAMBO PLASTICS PVT. LTD.vs   CHIEF QUALITY ASSURANCE ESTABLISHMENT

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Jambo_Plastics_Pvt_Ltd_vs_Chief_Quality_Assurance_on_29_August_2023_Karnt.pdf"]

Latest Legal News